Quantcast
[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

If you can see this message, the SSL certificate expiration has been fixed.
Become a Patron!

/vr/ - Retro Games


View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 56 KB, 900x675, 2772843-resident-evil-2-psx-05[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
2746441 No.2746441 [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe]

People's expectations continually rise with games, which is why people have difficulty getting into older games. Notice how /vr/ never talks about Atari games. Because only those who grew up with them care about them. Only those who grew up with Famicom, snes, mega Drive really care about them.

After early 2D like Atari, early 3D is the worst hit. These consoles really weren't strong enough to do 3D properly. The first to do so was probably Dreamcast. But the biggest issues relate to camera and control schemes. Take 3D games like Vagrant Story, or the N64 Castlevanias. The Demon Souls series just plays so much better and smoother, and it is mostly down to better camera and control systems. Having a controllable camera makes all the difference. Or RE series. Re4,5,6 just play smoother with direct aiming, camera over the shoulder. Compare Metal Gear to MGSV for similar changes. You may not like the newer games, and a lot of them are bad, but they still have superior control and cameras.

The ones seen as the most archaic are old console and PC RPGs. When I recommend old games, I skip those ones. People don't want to play a game that consists of hitting "Attack" menu over and over again. It's just stats and numbers on screen. But at least they have animations. The oldest PC First Person Dungeon crawlers barely have graphics and are just bare bones.

These factors, combined with the antiquated graphics, means that people just can't get into these games. The only people who are obsessive and care about them are the ones who grew up with them. Which means that interest in these consoles will grow less and less over time, until they are basically forgotten.

And this will just keep happening the more vidya tech advances. Do you think anyone will care for current games controlled via gamepad when we have full virtual reality? Controlling a game on a screen with a gamepad will seem so antiquated.

>> No.2746445

I grew up with the GBA and PS2. I was 9 when the 360 came out, yet I play more NES, SNES, Mega Drive and DOS games than modern ones.

How do I fit into your little theory?

>> No.2746449

Fuck off back to /v/ or Reddit.

Although it's true Atari is not remembered as much anymore because the guys who grew up with those are now in their 40s/50s (and yet we have people that age browsing /vr/, they're a minority), NES is going the same way, a lot of people who grew up with 5th or 6th gen, 4th gen or GB as old as it goes, have some trouble getting into NES or general 8bit stuff. You don't see a lot of C64 discussion either but that was big as Atari or NES.

That doesn't mean that they should be forgotten because there's legit good games that have stood the test of time in all of those systems. So fuck off with your shitty Souls argument. Souls have very shitty controls, enjoy your abysmal input lag and retarded hitboxes. (and I say this as someone who enjoys Souls, but not because of the gameplay)

>> No.2746459

>>2746445
Do you comment that you were born in the wrong generation on Youtube videos?

>> No.2746464

>>2746459

Do you waste time reading Youtube comments?

>> No.2746465

>>2746459
No, because I don't care when stuff came out, I just play things that interest me. I couldn't give a shit about commenting on YouTube. I'm just saying that

>the only people that care about old games are people that grew up with them

Is not true.

>> No.2746469

Early 2D and early 3D will be forgotten because they were ugly, simply as that.
But I think new people can still get into 2D games from the SNES and up
3D I can't comment on because my nostalgia is too strong and I never had a problem with tank controls, and after my PS1 I went to PC so never used analog sticks much

And your last part is true too. Some day everyone will forgot about current video games, just like how nobody cares about silent films anymore

>> No.2746470

>>2746441

People don't talk much about Atari because the games are brutally simple. There just isn't much to say.

Also fuck off with the Souls worship.

>> No.2746472
File: 23 KB, 637x371, Rogue_Screen_Shot_CAR.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
2746472

>>2746441
>People don't want to play a game that consists of hitting "Attack" menu over and over again.

Tell that to the daily FF threads.


Anyways, I love new games as much as I love old games. There are differences, but sometimes it's the limitations in older games that end up making them interesting. There are games I've been going back to time and again for over 30 years and still have fun.

The same as I grew up loving chess and then got into Dungeons and Dragons. D&D is a much more complex game than Chess, but they're both interesting and fun in their own ways.

Tl;dr the invention of new games doesn't automatically remove the fun that already existed in older games.

>> No.2746474

96 here, I was poor as a child so literally all I had for the longest time was an nes and an SNES we picked up at yard sales for less than 20 bucks. Also I had/have tons of friends who used to play nes or SNES or what have you at a family member's house, and we used to used to play nes ROMs at school all the time. Point is it's still possible for younger people to have fun with older games, but I guess what you're saying has some truth to it, as I and many of the people I know have never ventured farther back than the c64.

>> No.2746475

My first system was a Mega Drive and I love the Atari because I'm not a pleb.

>>2746445
>I was 9 when the 360 came out
Help me I'm getting old.

>> No.2746480

>>2746441
i disagree

i had fun with system shock 1 and that was 1994

id say the golden age began ~1990 maybe even earlier and that means that anything from the point forward is still relevant even today

>> No.2746483

atari games don't provide enough stimulus to take up enough of a person's spare energy and focus while they're playing for them to hook reliably into later generations

on the other hand, a person playing megaman has to invest enough focus into their reflexes and understanding of the game that it can provide a surface of concentration even to a modern player

the reason is that there's an upper ceiling on what even a completely attention deficit person can divide themselves to at any given time, and regardless of how detailed and refined the visuals become, a modern game actually can't become too much more stimulating than the older titles without getting to the point of "there's too much going on here for me to even appreciate"


Aside from that, the older cinematic camera angles are honestly sometimes better than giving the player full control, because sometimes the player doesn't know what they're doing and it looks shittier as a result

And even if the games have a shinier surface, their depth and substance isn't anything special.

>> No.2746487

>>2746475
It's pretty crazy when you think about it that the 360 is a decade old. Imagine if most AAA games back in 2000 had SNES ports!

This is why I think the "/vr/s release date limit should increase every year" sentiment I see on this board sometimes wouldn't work. If we did that, in a few years the 360 would be /vr/ and its still a current console!

>> No.2746496

When I play older titles I don't compare them to modern conventions and automatically "adjust" my expectations, and for me personally, that works.
I played Wizardry for the first time a while ago and I didn't expect animated sprites or free movement, mouse interface, etc. I expected one of the first first-person dungeon exploration games that allowed you to create your own party, and I found a keyboard control scheme and readable visuals that worked perfectly fine coupled with simple but fun combat and dungeon exploration. And I had a lot of fun with it.

You don't need to have played these games back then, and it's definitely not impossible to "get into" them now despite not having features of modern titles.

Also, you make it seem way too much like a linear improvement in systems and even gameplay over time, which isn't the case.
Some awesome features generally aren't found anymore in modern RPGs, like mapping/getting lost for example. Older graphic adventures had fun object interactions and secrets that you cannot find in modern styled titles. And so on.. your argument is really questionable, especially concerning gameplay quality and you generalize way too much when there are so many different games of varying quality.
Both good old and new games play well while shit old and new games play like shit.

>> No.2746498

>>2746487
The 360 is barely current now, the way the SNES was barely current in the late 90's. The simple fact is that in time, they'll both look equally out dated.

>> No.2746506

>>2746449
>That doesn't mean that they should be forgotten because there's legit good games that have stood the test of time in all of those systems. So fuck off with your shitty Souls argument. Souls have very shitty controls, enjoy your abysmal input lag and retarded hitboxes. (and I say this as someone who enjoys Souls, but not because of the gameplay)

The basic controls and camera system are much better than early 3D games though.

>> No.2746510

>>2746506
>The basic controls and camera system are much better than early 3D games though.

Of course. That's how all genres evolve. What's your point exactly?

>> No.2746512

>>2746498
In 2000 we already had a matured Dreamcast, and by the end of 2000 we got PS2. People were playing SNES ports on the GBA in 2001.
It's another era. I know what he's talking about. Not just about the perception in time, but also how the whole video game industry changed paradigms. It's true that other than more resolution and better textures, games aren't changing a lot since a decade. That didn't happen before, and that doesn't mean video games have reached perfection, quite the contrary. It's stagnated. But it will probably find its way into evolution, although we all can see it's going to be something very different than the kind of games /vr/ discusses. A lot of people consider hashtaging in twitter a video game now. No joke.

I think the 1999 cut out is perfect. It's symbolic, as it's the last year of the past millennium, can't get more retro than that, and also also filters most of what represents modern gaming. Halo was released in 2001, yes. It launched a new era of online console FPS that is still very relevant today and hasn't really changed that much.

Halo is /vr/'s final boss.

>> No.2746514

The phenomenon you observe exists, but your theory is just too simplistic and plain wrong.
As said before, you can't linearly classify game experiences like that.

>> No.2746518

>>2746498
>barely current

Most major games coming out are still getting releases on previous gen consoles, and it doesn't seem like all that many people have actually moved on to the xbone or ps4 yet. Yes, I know that the 360 ports are getting more inferior and that more and more games are being released exclusively for the current gen, but the 360 and ps3 are still very much current consoles, for now. Games from the past couple years have gotten releases on 360 and ps3 with some compromises, but could you imagine say, deus ex on the SNES? Of course not.

>> No.2746520

>>2746510
>What's your point exactly?

That the older games have camera and controls that are too different to get used to, and that newer games have better camera/controls.

The biggest change wasn't technology, but controllers. The PS1 came with no analogs. After the N64, they introduced the Dual-shock. But games all still aimed at the default controller so nothing changed. PS2 onwards had dual analogs as standard, and thus the era of a dedicated camera stick and modern controls began.

And as I said, it's gonna keep evolving. We're gonna see game pads as antiquated when we move onto whatever the next control scheme is found.

>> No.2746521

>>2746518

Don't forget remasters on 8th gen consoles. It works both ways, old gen consoles get ports, new gen consoles get ports!

>> No.2746523
File: 87 KB, 549x275, o17PdBG.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
2746523

>>2746498
>They'll both look equally outdated

Completely wrong. Diminishing returns on power needed VS graphics. That's why Gamecube and Xbox still looks fine compared to current generations, yet N64 and PS1 looked like complete trash literally the day new consoles came out.

>> No.2746524

>>2746441
this post belongs on /v/

>> No.2746525

>>2746520

As long as the game is well designed, not being able to freely control the camera shouldn't be a problem.

You would play any shitty new 3D game just because it has free camera on the 2nd stick?

>> No.2746526
File: 272 KB, 800x923, ayla.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
2746526

I agree there is a large barrier to playing older games. The graphics, controls, UI and sound aren't nearly as refined as what we have today, and those aspects can definitely make for a tougher or more confusing experience going in.

However, my own experience going back and playing games and titles from systems and computers that I never had nostalgia for has been pretty positive. There is that initial barrier that you have to get through, but a few hours into a good game you adjust to the idiosyncrasies and the problems start to melt away into immersion.

I think if people would actually give these older games a chance, and play them with the intention to beat them, then their opinions would be quite different.

Sexy Ayla unrelated.

>> No.2746528

>>2746523

>that graphic

Is so simplistic and only looking at one angle. PS4 games look SO much better than PS3 games. Textures, lighting and other features as so incredibly important. More than just poly count. Notice the Beethoven model is not textured or under any kind of lighting.

The real answer is that DC, PS2, NGC, Xbox were the first consoles that could actually do 3D in any kind of half decent way. Saturn, PS1, and even N64 were rushing to 3D way, way too early before the tech was really all there.

>> No.2746529

>>2746512
Not just about the perception in time, but also how the whole video game industry changed paradigms.

That didn't happen once, it's happening constantly and has never stopped. There isn't one single fundamental change there are thousands of incremental ones.

I have no problem if this remains a board dedicated to games from 1999 and before, but that doesn't mean that the distinction isn't almost completely arbitrary. I would bet anything that in 20 years the PS1 and PS2 will be lumped together just as much as NES and SNES are.

The only important things Halo did was to finally make an FPS control scheme for a controller that people actually liked and to bring versus FPS gaming to home consoles. Other than that there's very little important difference between it and Quake. Fundamentally Halo really didn't do anything important.

If anything, it was Battlefield a few years later adding experience and level grinding that was one of the biggest changes the genre has seen.

>> No.2746535

>>2746472
>Roguelike
They are the first thing that comes to mind when people go on about "aged badly" and "OMG games before 2005 are unplayable" and "it's all nostalgia".

It's ok to be casual OP, just post somewhere else.

>> No.2746536

>>2746525
>As long as the game is well designed, not being able to freely control the camera shouldn't be a problem.

I want to feel like I'm in full control of the characters. Early 3D games just don't give that. Even Ocarina of Time, which is closer to modern games than most, feels like it needs a camera button. Wind Waker was glorious entirely because of that.

>You would play any shitty new 3D game just because it has free camera on the 2nd stick?

Modern games have a LOT of problems, and I generally don't like them. But I believe the basic control schemes are better. The best would be taking the design and gameplay type of older games and making them with newer graphics and controls.

>RE2 with over the shoulder shooting

>> No.2746538

>>2746520
Okay but so what? That's like saying in the early days of NES platformers were simple and good jumping physics hadn't been perfected. Then they did and platformers got better.

You're not really saying anything meaningful is my point.

>> No.2746541

>>2746523
>Completely wrong.
Let's screencap this and check back with each other in 20 years. I will bet you virtually anything that I'm right.

>> No.2746545

>>2746441
>Notice how /vr/ never talks about Atari games.

Its generally a matter of how the first 2 generations played out. 1st generation pong machines are fun as fuck, but are a pain in the ass to hook up and require you to have a buddy or 3. 2nd generation was basically dominated by Atari, and the concept of what a video game looked like hadn't solidified. It wasn't until 3rd
we saw staples of video game formats starting to emerge, like the concept of a Title Screen.

3rd gen was basically the point where games started behaving the way they do today. From a technology standpoint, /vr/ is limited to basically 3 groups: 1st and 2nd gen consoles, which hardly get covered because Pinball and Arcade Cabinets were way better during that time, 3rd and 4th generation, which was the golden age of sprites and the establishment of a number of gaming dynasties, and 5th gen and Dreamcast, which covers the early concepts of the transition to 3d.

2nd gen gets no love because SO much of how to play the game was tied up in the instruction books for them, and those are almost never included in a rom pack or when buying the cartridge, and narratives were practically non-existent.

>> No.2746547
File: 54 KB, 800x327, starfoxcomparebig.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
2746547

>>2746528
It is simplistic, in that it's drawing an example. Literally everything you mentioned, textures, lighting, sees diminishing returns. We will never again see a leap in graphical quality like n64 to gamecube, and it's completely due to the fact that once you double your resolution size on a model, texture, shadow, lighting, it will take a huge leap and then slowly build.

There's literally no other way of looking at it. You're arguing with facts.

Yes, obviously PS4 looks better than PS3, but the upgrade in graphical quality is not as large as PS2 to PS3, PS1 to PS2, etc.

Therefore we can't use the same time scale for making games considered retro. It's literally growing slower, so it has to age slower, or at this rate when games become nearly photorealistic, they will be considered retro simply because they are 10 years old or whatever.

>> No.2746548

>>2746535
Are you saying you think roguelikes aged badly or that a lot of other people use them as an example of aging badly?

Personally I think they've aged the best out of many old games. Very simple but with complexity enough for almost endless playing.

I'm not OP btw.

>> No.2746549
File: 1.46 MB, 240x232, 1430775923991.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
2746549

>>2746441
>Comparing a hybrid menu based turn+real time RPG to a standard action RPG
>IMplying the camera in VS was bad
>Implying superior controls and cameras makes a game with terrible gameplay worth considering over an older game with lesser controls or camera but with much better gameplay
>People don't want to play a game that consists of hitting "Attack" menu over and over again
>They're literally the games that sell the most, especially in mobage.
>Actually caring about getting more people into retro gaming when that means ruining one of the few safe niches videogame still have

From what kind of bizzarro shitposting dimension do you even come from?
Do you even play videogames or just watch let's play on youtube?

>> No.2746550

>>2746541
>You'll see
>You'll all see!!!

Nice one faggot.

>> No.2746551

>>2746441
well… I'm an early 80's kid, and love the 8&16-bit era's, but think that the majority of retro games from then on, where generally clunky and visually unappealing.

>> No.2746556

>>2746528
What this guy said. That graphic is misleading because it is looking solely at meshes and not any of the other factors that constitute how pretty a game looks.

>> No.2746557

>>2746556
Literally every other factor that makes a game look good is on a diminishing returns scale, you stupid fuck.

>> No.2746562

>>2746548
they're (in many cases) not that old and they were all technologically well behind the curve even when brand new.

still quite a niche genre but by conventional logic, such a thing never should've existed in the first place. nostalgia doesn't figure into their appeal at all.

>> No.2746563

>>2746557
>Waaaaaaa, people are pointing out that my meme picture is misleading

Grow up.

>> No.2746564

>>2746550
I'm dead serious, if you think in that time games won't have changed to the point that the 360 looks horribly dated I think you have your head in the sand.

Or you might just be young and not used to how consistently things change. Which given your response to my disagreeing was just to throw out a hearty "faggot" is probably what's correct.

>> No.2746567

>>2746563
>Texture resolution
>Model resolution
>Lighting resolution
>Shadow quality
>Anti Aliasing
>Anisotropic filtering
>Screen resolution
>Bump mapping
>Parallax mapping

All see diminishing returns. Do ypu want me to keep going, retard?

>Whaaa I saw someone argue against this picture I can't believe it was actually accurate the whole time and I'm retarded

Grow up.

>> No.2746570

>>2746562
>still quite a niche genre but by conventional logic, such a thing never should've existed in the first place.

In what way? Because it's a genre that doesn't tie itself to changing technologies? That's one of the strengths of them in my opinion. They're able to be run on almost anything, but despite the simple looking appearance they are complex and challenging games that require more thought and strategy than almost any other genre.

Also, although personally I like using tile sets and am a little tired of looking at ascii these days, there are people who feel very nostalgic over the classic roguelike look.

>> No.2746571
File: 774 KB, 2000x1125, c5ad30ae110bba12c4ab08a471b78daf.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
2746571

>>2746564
No you're right faggot console games are leaving the previous generation in the dust on a level exactly equal to the leap from N64 to Gamecube. Fucking dumbass. Are you even reading what you're typing?

>> No.2746584

>>2746571
>Are you even reading what you're typing?

I could easily ask the same thing of you. If you can't see games and technology continuing to change then you're blind or stupid. But then you're trying to win the discussion by tossing insults around instead of saying anything meaningful so we already know you're stupid.

>> No.2746596

>>2746584
>If you can't see games and technology continuing to change then you're blind or stupid.

If you can't see graphics are evolving slower than before because of diminishing returns then you're blind or stupid.

>But then you're trying to win the discussion by tossing insults around instead of saying anything meaningful so we already know you're stupid.

I've said many meaningful things in this post >>2746567 here

Maybe you could learn to read and actually say shit instead of giving me your moronic opinion with a dismissive tone peppered on top, you stupid faggot.

This is what's going on by the way

>2+2=4, faggot
>"No it doesn't and you calling me a faggot is proof that you have no arguments that it is"

Kill yourself.

>> No.2746597

>>2746441
>People's expectations continually rise with movies, which is why people have difficulty getting into older movies.
pretty sure i didn't grow up watching b&w flicks, yet i still enjoy quite a few of them.

not every formula has been significantly improved. as solid gameplay is the core of every good game, those games that nailed their gameplay formulas will remain good (at least until there's a sea change in the way games are played, such as completely immersive virtual reality). when tweaks to mechanics are done simply to yield a different product, not a superior one, the only thing left to improve is presentation. and if a game with solid gameplay presented itself using means that would not be substantially improved upon (such as sprites or stylized art instead of realistic 3d), then that game will remain timeless.

>> No.2746610

>>2746596
>If you can't see graphics are evolving slower than before because of diminishing returns then you're blind or stupid.

Slower yes, but they're still changing and graphics are only one small facet of games. All your points here >>2746567 are entirely tied to graphics.

AI developments, gameplay improvements, new approaches to game design and a host of other factors are just as important in establishing an era of games as the graphics. Even if all graphical improvements stopped dead right now, games in 20 years will still look vastly different than they do today.

And still you're on the name calling faggot train. If you're weren't an idiot or a child you would realize it doesn't help your argument at all. But instead you'll inevitably angrily mash it into your keyboard anyways. :)

>> No.2746612

>>2746610
>Slower yes

Thank you. Argument over. See how easy that was, faggot

>> No.2746617

>People don't want to play a game that consists of hitting "Attack" menu over and over again. It's just stats and numbers on screen.
FUCK YOU
It's people like you that ruined modern JRPGs.

It's strange that despite this claim, mobile games and "clickers" are very popular among the young crowd, even though they're basically exactly what you described, albeit even more simplified.

>> No.2746621

>>2746612
>Argument over.
Excuse me? How?


I never once said or implied graphics aren't changing more slowly than they did at some points in the past. If that was your whole point we couldn't have stopped this long ago.

However as to what the discussion was actually about, that being games changing over time I have proved my point. In 20 years games will have changed drastically. To the point that PS2 and PS3 are lumped together the same as NES and SNES have been today.

I am absolutely correct and the one thing you're desperately clinging to is the minor point graphical fidelity.

>> No.2746631

>>2746567
Except the image in >>2746523 fucks up because the model is designed around the 6000 triangles model, and the 60000 just has more thrown in to mislead the viewer in to thinking that processing power is being wasted. If that model were generated from scratch and not by simply increasing the polygons on the 6000 mesh, you would see things like individual strands of hair and the lapels not being just a bump on the torso.

You can't shout "diminishing returns" and expect it to mean anything when the underlying issue is one of design.

>> No.2746635

>>2746617
JRPGs ruined JRPGs. They started out as Japanese versions of Western RPGs dumbed them down to the point that they basically became "hitting "Attack" menu over and over again." Final Fantasy 1 and Dragon Quest 1 are practically that.

Then the series tried some more interesting systems, but both were by and large rejected. Final Fantasy IV came out which removes almost all choice from the player and gives them a story based game where 90% of the gameplay is hitting attack over and over.

The irony of course is that Final Fantasy II and III were purposefully not released outside of Japan for many years because the Japenese believed westerners too stupid to play such games. Meanwhile those same westerneres were into Wizardy, Ultima and roguelikes and probably would have received the games far better than Japan ever did.

>> No.2746672

>>2746635
>Meanwhile those same westerneres were into Wizardy, Ultima and roguelikes
lolno
You're thinking of the PC crowd, which back then was very separated from the console crowd and consisted mostly of grownups.

The "westerners too stupid to play" actually refer to the NES core audience, aka 6-10yos playing Mario and without much video game experience outside of that.

>> No.2746674
File: 1.37 MB, 1534x2100, 2362613-nes_wizardry.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
2746674

>>2746672

Also I don't get what OP's problem is.

You can't cope with how older games didn't have this or that mechanic that newer games have. Fine, nice blog.

>> No.2746675

>>2746672
This pretty much

there were in fact some pretty good console-exclusive wRPGs but I doubt they sold much

>> No.2746681

>>2746672
I think that's a false perception. I was always into both console and and PC and I wasn't unusual. Wizardry was also an NES game. There was a lot of overlap.

The main point though is that the Japanese thought the games would be too complex, but gamers over here were already dealing with games more complex than they were.

And that JRPGs were really never a particularly complex genre. The ones that are on the more complicated side like the SaGa games were never anywhere near the popularity of the straight forward simple ones. That FFIV is still considered one of the best games of all time over there speaks volumes I think.

>> No.2746689

>>2746441
>Only those who grew up with Famicom, snes really care about them.
Not even remotely true. A little more true with Atari games but there are still kids who enjoy them.

>> No.2746703

>>2746681
You were a minority.

>> No.2746712

>>2746703

People who was into cRPGs were a minority.
Wizardry remained a somewhat cult classic, but not a lot of people were into it compared to other games. And yes, adults loved Super Mario Bros, Donkey Kong or Pac-Man, not just kids.
The popularity of western RPGs back then wasn't as big as it is today.
Dragon Quest was a lot more popular (in Japan) by comparison, Dragon Quest was a social phenomenon, Wizardry was a neckbeard game, from before nerds became cool.

>> No.2746718

>>2746441
>Notice how /vr/ never talks about Atari games

This may very well be because most Atari games didn't get past the arcade mentality of "score x points and try to beat your high score next time"

Unfortunately they were simple games with no end, and this didn't make them very memorable. Still, there's a charm to its simplicity and I love it, but this also means there's not that much to talk about.

A certain percentage of Atari games was shovelware or non-sensical and this kind of hurts the system as well.

I held my first Atari joystick at 5, my dad's console, in the 80's. I grew up with and love the system but there's not really that much to talk about when it comes to the games.

Nintendo is where the games started developing something of a story, and thus became more memorable.

>> No.2746720

>>2746703
Even if I was, I maintain that on average western RPG players were more accepting and interested in more complex and challenging examples of the than the Japenese were.

It's ironic that Japanese developers took such heavy inspiration from western video and table top RPGs, simplified them and then assumed that the already simplified versions of them would be too complex for non-Japanese to enjoy. That's the bit I think is kind of funny.

We will obviously never get to know, but I really think if FF II and III were released to a western audience they would have gained a lot more traction than they did in Japan because they're closer to the kinds of RPGs westerners were enjoying at the time.

>> No.2746728

>>2746441
>Notice how /vr/ never talks about Atari games
Is this your first time here?

>> No.2746738

>>2746445
hipster/10
kill yourself

>> No.2746746
File: 62 KB, 800x378, Daytona-USA-Arcade-EUR.JPG.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
2746746

This early 3D games still prints a fuckton of money.

>> No.2746774

>>2746738
Nah thanks. Do you think it's wrong for people to play games from before their time? Would you rather I only play the latest games? It's not like I don't play modern games, I just happen to find myself playing older ones more often.

>> No.2746829

>>2746441
Taking OP seriously for a moment...
>Do you think anyone will care for current games controlled via gamepad when we have full virtual reality? Controlling a game on a screen with a gamepad will seem so antiquated.
This is true for most people and shouldn't be controversial. But:

>people's expectations continually rise
>expectations
"Expectations" are about the FUTURE, not old games in the past. This is why people that complain about old games being old usually sound like dopes with barely-functioning memories that are continually surprised by differences between new and old games, instead of "expecting" the game to be what it always was.

The people that still play old games play them because they like things about them, not because they don't notice the differences. It's not news to say they're relatively niche... it's almost like /vr/ is a separate board with fewer posters or something.

>> No.2746830

>>2746774
Some people, like that guy (and probably OP) only come here to shitpost. It doesn't matter what you say, they just respond to everything what that kind of idiocy.

>> No.2746831

>>2746523
I can't tell when people post this in ignorance vs. trolling. I'm pretty sure the guy that made it in the first place knew precisely how misleading it is and did it on purpose.

subdivision != adding detail

>> No.2746832

>>2746441
People still play board games. People still play D&D, Warhammer, MtG, poker with real cards, and so on and so forth. Just because something is new doesn't necessarily mean that the old method is inherently inferior and doomed to be forgotten. There's something to be said about controlling a character with a game pad instead of full immersion in the world, just like how a painting of a place can be more beautiful than a photograph of the same or hell, many times even better than being there yourself.

>> No.2746963

>>2746831
Except all detail hits a brick wall because of diminishing returns, you stupid cuckold. There's only so much detail you can apply before it stops making the game look realistic in huge leaps and bounds.

Way to repeat horseshit you saw in a thread once though.

>> No.2747003

>>2746963
Do you even understand why he was pointing out how bad an example that is? We are not even close to reaching the ceiling of graphical realism.

It's one thing to render an apple or even a realistic face in real time. It's another thing entirely to render it in a complex environment. We're not even at a point where we can render realistically detailed crowd scenes in real time. Let alone with complex AI algorithms and other processes happening behind the scenes.

The diminishing returns you speak of are a very minor aspect of the whole scope of games evolving.

There was a time when Crysis was the most amazing looking game that people thought would be made for ages, but it looks like dated crap now. In 2025 Metal Gear Solid 5 will equally look dated and archaic compared to modern games of the era. Only an idiot would expect otherwise.

>> No.2747034

>>2746441

>Or RE series. Re4,5,6 just play smoother with direct aiming, camera over the shoulder.

That's a completely different game genre where direct aiming and over the shoulder camera is more useful. Compare RE 1, 2, or 3 on the PS1 to the RE remake or RE0 on the gamecube and they play essentially the same, and all are enjoyable.

>> No.2747063
File: 59 KB, 640x905, 11014871_1168956843134161_8291586360782164364_n.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
2747063

>>2746445

>> No.2747072

The art of the videogame consist in how the developers used the tools at their disposal to craft a cohesive interactive experiencie. Sometimes they did it with pixels, others with pre-rendered graphics, but in the end thats just the frame. The art resides in how they used that tool, and the succesfull ones will always be worth revisiting, because studying how other humans used all the tools at their disposal to overcame their limitations strengthens our human spirit.

>> No.2747125
File: 10 KB, 236x281, ea1975d8dbca13218639319a4438df89.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
2747125

>>2746441
Why do I have the sinking feeling that this entire post is just a turgid, thinly-veiled attempt at starting another "and that's why we should be able to talk about games from 2007" thread?

>> No.2747153

>RE4 plays smoother
Except it doesn't. Turning around there is just as slow, aiming is even more difficult, your view's very limited. It's a very "clunky" game compared to the older Resident Evil games, but people don't mind because they're used to the control scheme.

>> No.2747165

>>2746441

Nobody talks about Atari games because they are straight up garbage and laughable.

>> No.2747175

>>2746441
Cool blog bro.
Some kids can get over a game not having HD graphics and modern controls and just enjoy it because it's fun. Others can't. That's fine when it's just a matter of person taste. But when you rant about how no kids can enjoy old games because you can't, in a blog on 4chan, it's clear there are some underlying personal issues.

>> No.2747178

>>2746441

Also I'm offended that you have such a shitty opinion of video games but you posted a picture of RE2. RE2 deserves better than retards like you.

>> No.2747180

>>2746445
The GBA was a portable SNES/Genesis, so...

>> No.2747181
File: 2.14 MB, 275x283, fJKTmEc.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
2747181

When I was young, I wanted the latest greatest thing because my friends had it. As I've gotten older my tastes have changed. Good games are good games. I appreciate and play games from all eras. One thing that has disappointed me with many newer games is the obsession with hyper realism. Don't get me wrong though. I appreciate amazing graphics but not every game needs them. Some modern games would be better if they were... idk, a bit more "cartoony." I like to detach from reality a bit when I game. I feel many games would be better if they focused a little more on the mechanics and less on the graphics. They only seem to care about "looking better" than the competition. This has been the case even going back to many retro releases tbh. Take Sewer Shark for example. Neat graphics for the time but the actual gameplay was absolute boring dogshit.

>> No.2747183

>>2747180
>The GBA was a portable SNES/Genesis

You're underage, cool.

>> No.2747190

>>2747183
Are you implying it wasn't a sprite-based console dominated by platformers and to a lesser extent RPG's?

Perhaps adding-up a "less powerful" to my original post would better suit your autism?

>> No.2747193

>>2747183
You're bitter, nice.

>> No.2747195

>>2747183
Don't make assumptions! It's entirely possible he's retarded.

>> No.2747197

>>2747190
>Perhaps adding-up a "less powerful" to my original post
To prove even more that you're underage?

>> No.2747203

>>2747197
To prove even more you're a bitter autismo picking over the tiniest bullshit.

>> No.2747204
File: 602 KB, 942x705, dreamcast was the last retro console.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
2747204

>>2747180
The GBA was the last true retro console.

>> No.2747208
File: 446 KB, 300x186, 1442627530610.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
2747208

>>2747181

>> No.2747213
File: 2.86 MB, 480x271, 1445118128410.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
2747213

>>2747204
But it wasn't a console.
>I do agree though. GBA should have a place on this board.

>> No.2747214

>>2747203
> Perhaps adding-up a tiniest bullshit to my original post would better suit your autism?
nice backpedaling, kiddo

>> No.2747216
File: 354 KB, 800x800, 1396637625812.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
2747216

>>2747204

>> No.2747218

>>2747204
Theres so much wrong with this image

>> No.2747225
File: 7 KB, 584x93, memeposting.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
2747225

>>2747214
>implying that's even me

>> No.2747237
File: 492 KB, 1006x1007, 6vCXW0G_jpg.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
2747237

>>2746523
>posting that shitty image again

>> No.2747239

>>2747183
He's not incorrect though. Aesthetically the GBA was akin to 4th gen home consoles than any other handheld at the time, or any future gen handhelds like the DS.

>> No.2747245
File: 127 KB, 1079x434, diminishing returns.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
2747245

also

>> No.2747247

This fucker has been making this thread biweekly for the past month now.

Someone post the screencap of some anon explaining how age doesn't impact enjoyment from last thread, I didn't save it.

I don't know what would motivate someone to continually make paragraphs of shitposting every week but you need to get a hobby dude, maybe try video games or something.

>> No.2747257

...except a lot of older stuff in other forms of entertainment continues to be popular today. It's why the word "classic" exists.

Why does Star Trek still have great ratings and is considered a must watch for any sci fi fan to this day if people only like what they grew up with?

>> No.2747263

>>2746512
>I think the 1999 cut out is perfect. It's symbolic, as it's the last year of the past millennium
2000 is the last year of the past millenium.
Though it doesn't make more sense because 6th gen in exception of Dreamcast should be entirely avoided on the /vr/.

>also also filters most of what represents modern gaming

To be honest I think PSX release much more divided old gaming and modern gaming.

>> No.2747305

>>2747153
>aiming is even more difficult,

You can actually aim. The old games you never aimed. With auto aim you could "aim" with your eyes closed. With manual you're just making sure you're facing the enemy. You have very little control of your shots.

>your view's very limited.

This is a bonus, in a tense action horror game.

It is mostly the same controls, with a new camera, which vastly improves it.

>> No.2747328

>>2747305
Wouldn't the fact that aiming is more difficult make it LESS accessible to modern audiences, not more? The limited view is good for building tension, but it can very easily become an annoyance. Especially on repeated playthoughs. RE1-3 had very simple, easy to understand controls. And the smaller emphasis on action meant that the clunkiness wasn't as much of an issue. I think the main problem is that people are more familliar with RE4 so they don't view the controls as being more awkward, even though chances are that someone who doesn't play games would find them much harder to deal with. Don't get me wrong though, I like the controls in RE4 and think they work well with the game.

>> No.2747416

>>2746441
>Re4,5,6 just play smoother with direct aiming, camera over the shoulder.
And you think 4 was an improvement in the direction the series went? Are you fucking serious? Haunted houses became an open-world travelogue. GJ!

>Do you think anyone will care for current games controlled via gamepad when we have full virtual reality?
This one i agree with. It's the reason we're all playing Star Trek chess rather than old-school chess. Because everything newer is better.

Of course not everyone is going to like every retro game; I didn't like half of them when they were actually released. The final Fantasy combat system sucks balls IMHO and always will. But to say SoTN doesn't have any appeal? Or that Sega's superscaler effect isn't funky and cool in the vein of op art?

These threads are starting to get creepy, like the OP is writing a thesis and wants us to provide material.

>>2747305
Wrong, because >>2747153 is right. The over-shoulder control scheme was a real backward step. Control can be limited, that's not a problem, but having the character permanently blocking your line-of-sight in a true 3D environment is just frustrating, and a really cheap and nasty way to make a game feel spooky. A lot of us recognised this. Dead Space tried it as well, and thus it became the weakest factor of two otherwise-playable games.

>> No.2747578

>>2747416
>And you think 4 was an improvement in the direction the series went?

A lot of people agree on that actually, even back in the day when the game came out. Imagine how stale the gameplay would've gotten. What they did after 4 though I think it's another whole business.

>> No.2747750

>>2747003
>We are not even close to reaching the ceiling of graphical realism.

Nobody claimed that you fucking retard. Stop sperging out. It's simply growing at a slower pace, therefore the rate at which games should be classified as retro should be slightly different.


>>2747237
Way to get completely sidetracked by the image because you've seen it disproven before. Learn to fucking read.

The entire

Fucking

Concept

Of the image is true

More processing power is needed to make smaller and smaller incremental jumps in graphicall quality. You're literally arguing with fact if you deny this. That's why Gamecube to Wii isn't as large a jump as N64 to gamecube. Stop arguing with things that are completely true.

Also that image you posted doesn't disprove my point, but you would know that if you had actually read what I posted, also it's wrong as well.

>> No.2747852

>>2747416
>Haunted houses became an open-world travelogue. GJ!
Uh,

The whole "haunted house and only a haunted house or haunted house like areas" were dropped in 3 and Code Veronica.

>> No.2747902

>more ranting by a kid that cries when he sees pixels and hates substance over style gameplay
Enjoy your garbage modern games that are 90% fucking movies and 10% goddamn brainless bullshit.

Gaming died in the mid-90s and children starting out with gaming should be forced to play pre-1995 games for at least a few years before playing new stuff.

/vr/ needs to be pre-1995. Seriously. We need to keep out these Playstation/N64 children.

>> No.2747982

>>2746445
>not all X are like that!

Anybody who unironically uses NAXALT as a meaningful statement about anything should go feet first into an oven

>> No.2747994

>>2747982
>NAXALT
Sounds like a cool shooting game for the PC-Engine, I want to play it.

>> No.2748017

>>2747416
>Haunted houses became an open-world travelogue. GJ!
you know the series was called bio hazard in japan, it was only in america that they decided to make residences a motif

>> No.2748041

>>2747750

Not to argue your point about diminishing returns (which I agree with), but the jump from GC to Wii wasn't very big because they barely upgraded the hardware in the first place so that they could be the cheapest console on the market and have a unique (at the time) input method.

The Wii is basically a Gamecube with a higher clock speed and double the RAM (which is why Dolphin was able to emulate the Wii so early in its life).

>> No.2748048

>>2747982
It's a perfectly valid argument, if the person on the other side is making a retarded point.

>OP: all x is like that
>that guy: actually, not all x is like that

Don't make such absolute statements.

>> No.2748074

>>2746830
>implying I'm a shitposter for calling out a narcissistic dumbass

>> No.2748137

>>2748074
I don't see what's narcissistic about pointing out that the entire point of OP's thread is incorrect because people do, in fact, enjoy old games from before their time.

>> No.2748252

>>2746445
anecdotal evidence is anecdotal.

>> No.2748262

>>2748252
So? OP said the ONLY people who care about older games are those who grew up with them. The fact that somebody does care about them blows his point out of the water.

I always see people on /vr/ complain about "retro hipsters" bringing up the prices of "babby's first RPGs" Chrono Trigger and Earthbound. Surely the fact that retro gaming is bigger than ever and that games keep increasing in demand disproves the point that nobody cares about retro games?

>> No.2748286

>>2747218
Nice eyes, m8! I had to take a second look.
I can't believe the Dreamcast logo isn't blue there. The anon that posted that must feel like a right wally now.

>> No.2748292

>>2746445
trying too hard

>> No.2748303

>>2747181
Pretty based and honest viewpoint. Underrated post.

>> No.2748417

The general public will grow less and less likely to play old games, sure. That happens with every medium as it gets older, not many people these days watch black and white movies. But hobbyists and people who really enjoy gaming will want to learn more about games, and will eventually learn that there's plenty of old landmark titles for them to play if they search them out. It's the same way today, there are plenty of people on this board playing games like Dragon Quest or Ultima for the first time.

That's not to say that there aren't some ways newer games have improved upon older ones, or made going back to them difficult at times. I like auto-saving, for example. I played through Ys a while ago and lost two hours worth of play because I hadn't thought to save. What matters is that the game itself was fun enough for issues like that to be worth dealing with.

>> No.2748423

>>2746441
I grew up with N64 and like SNES almost over it tbh.

>> No.2748425
File: 90 KB, 739x742, 1409687933452.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
2748425

i wish good threads got this many replies around here

>> No.2748427

>>2748425
this /vr/ is slowly dying.
there's still the other /vr/ though, I only wish it got more traffic.

>> No.2748437

>>2746520
>whatever the next control scheme is found
we had the wii the previous gen and here we're still sitting with gamepads. don't think they're going out anytime soon.

>> No.2748448
File: 48 KB, 490x368, ray-trace-adv-490.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
2748448

>>2746523
Pushing purely more polygons is a terrible way to improve graphics. More powerful hardware allows for more powerful techniques. For instance bump mapping polygons would let you get essentially the 60000 polygon image for 600 polygons.

However polygon's aren't the only way to produce computer graphics. If commodity real time ray tracing hardware is implemented in future hardware, one could generate almost photo realistic images in video games and simulation. Who knows, maybe that's the future, and as >>2746541 pointed out it may be like night and day to us 20 years down the road.

>> No.2748509
File: 168 KB, 1919x1079, shovel knight14.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
2748509

>>2747750
> It's simply growing at a slower pace, therefore the rate at which games should be classified as retro should be slightly different.

First off I don't fully agree that it's growing at a slower rate. But for the sake of this argument I'll go along with that. We both agree we're no where near the ceiling of graphical fidelity, how fast we're getting there isn't as important.

The point is that graphics themselves are ultimately are only a small aspect of games and nowhere near the only metric to determine how dated or current one is. Just look at Shovel Knight. It was made to look like an NES game. There's even a version that can run on an NES. But playing it for even a few minutes it's very clear it's not a game of that era.

Graphics aren't everything.

When people complain about how much they think modern games suck, they're not talking about graphics. That's not what distinguishes these games. It's gameplay changes, social media stuff, online, micro transactions. There are far more than just graphics that define what era a game comes from. And that change isn't slowing down even a little.

Also while we're at it, let's remind ourselves what the word "retro" that's getting thrown around so much actually means. These old games we talk about aren't technically retro. Shovel Knight specifically is. Not to derail, but be more mindful choosing words.

>>2747245
Also this is important and shouldn't be overlooked. Video games are almost never about just rendering one character in an empty room. It's about creating an environment for them to exist in. The more processing power, the more complex that environment can be. Metal Gear Solid V is an easy example that large leaps are still being made.

And they will continue. I will accept anyone's challenge who wants to wager that MGSV won't look old and dated compared to the current video games of 2025. Or hell, even 2020.

>> No.2748521

>>2748509
>Also while we're at it, let's remind ourselves what the word "retro" that's getting thrown around so much actually means. These old games we talk about aren't technically retro.
Don't be so fucking pedantic. "Retro" is just a Latin root that means "backwards" as in the word retrospective (to look backwards into the past, like an imageboard that talks about old games).

>> No.2748527

>>2748521
Retro as a word in the English language (which we are conversing in) has a specific meaning. It's something imitating a style or design of the recent past.

Your collection of NES carts aren't "retro" they're old. There's a difference.

I'm sorry if you think it's pedantic to point this out, and it really doesn't help that this forum is misnamed. But it's led to a situation where people use the word to mean whatever they want at a given time.

>> No.2748540

>>2748527
"Retro games" almost always means 2D/last millennium games, 4chan didn't invent that

>> No.2748546

>>2748540
Just because 4chan didn't start the misuse of the word doesn't mean we should perpetuate it. There are people here who legitimately think "retro" is a synonym for old and that's just sad.

>> No.2748547

>>2748509
>That's not what distinguishes these games

Actually it is. Graphics aren't everything but PS1 and N64 already were considered retro years ago and Gamecube still isn't, completely due to the graphics being so vastly different from Gamecube to Wiiu era. Explain that.

>> No.2748549

>>2748527
Well, if you want to go by the Miriam -Webster definition, "relating to, reviving, or being the styles and especially the fashions of the past." So, old games are indeed in the style of old games from the past.

I guess I agree though that retro would include things like Shovel Knight, but people trying to discuss said games here probably doesn't have much to do with people not understanding the title of the board. You could name it old games and you'd probably still get people saying that they should be here since /v wouldn't appreciate them or something.

>> No.2748550

>>2748509
>I will accept anyone's challenge who wants to wager that MGSV won't look old and dated compared to the current video games of 2025.

It won't. Wind Waker is 12 years old and looks better than many games coming out today. Melee came out 14 years ago and still looks great, while the original smash bros looked dated literally two years after new console came out. Were you even around then?

>> No.2748551

>>2748547
Gamecube isn't thought of that way here because of our 1999 rule, but it certainly is generally speaking considered old by today's standards. Exactly the same as the PS2.

Are you really going to try and tell me that PS2 and Gamecube games feel like modern video games when played today?

>> No.2748552

>>2748509
>The more processing power, the more complex that environment can be.

No you're right the games look exactly the same but one has a few more enemies so the other game looks old as fuck now. Retard.

>> No.2748553
File: 140 KB, 595x772, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
2748553

>>2748546
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrogaming

Well, good luck fighting the good fight for proper usage of Latin I guess

>> No.2748554

>>2748551
Yes, they do feel almost exactly the same. Are you serious right now? PS2 has some dated titles because it's extremely underpowered, but Xbox and Gamecube are very similar in visual acuity to current gen titles.

>> No.2748558

>>2748549
>relating to, reviving
This is an important part you're ignoring.

Anyways don't get me wrong, I don't want this to turn into a Shovel Knight forum. The spirit is that this is a forum for old video games and that's what it should be. But it does get confusing when it's inaccurately named and then people use the name to fit whatever definition they like.

>>2748550
Sure they look great. I think Super Mario 3 still looks great. But there's a difference between looking good and looking modern and current. No one anywhere would mistake either Wind Waker or the first Smash for a game from 2015. If the new Smash came out with the exact same graphics as the N64 game people would loose their minds.

>> No.2748559

>>2748552
If you can't see the important gameplay differences between fighting 2-3 enemies and fighting dozens. Or rather having 2-3 sets of gameplay processes going on verses dozens of them, then I don't know what to tell you. If you can't even grasp that I would barely know where to start with you

>> No.2748560

>>2748554
>Xbox and Gamecube are very similar in visual acuity to current gen titles.

And yet no one would mistake GC or Xbox games for modern games from 2015 if they played them. That's my whole point. Graphics are a minor part of the equation. There are many other things that date a game than just it's graphics.

>> No.2748562
File: 85 KB, 640x480, Isoncorridor.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
2748562

>>2748558
>But there's a difference between looking good and looking modern and current.

Please don't get ahead of yourself. This is a Gamecube launch title. Look at that low res. It came out four years after the N64 was launched. Are you really trying to tell me there wasn't a huge leap that hasn't been replicated on the same level since? Or maybe, gasp, it wasn't, due exactly to the diminishing returns you saw being spoken about in the picture above, which is why games in that era should turn retro at a slower pace, because they're changing at a slower pace?

>> No.2748565

>>2748559
>important gameplay differences between fighting 2-3 enemies and fighting dozens

Are you retarded? Why would you even say that? Of course there's a fucking difference. Are you trying to say that if Super Mario 64's next Gen sequel had the exact same graphics but more enemies on screen, then the previous title is now completely left in the dust? Are you even reading what you're saying?

>And yet no one would mistake GC or Xbox games for modern games from 2015 if they played them

That doesn't prove your point at all? I didn't say they are indistinguishable, I said that the visual differences are more subtle than ever before, which means that the games will age perceptively slower. How are you not grasping this concept?

>> No.2748575
File: 36 KB, 440x330, rogue squadron n64.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
2748575

>>2748562
>Are you really trying to tell me there wasn't a huge leap that hasn't been replicated on the same level since?

That's a jump, but I wouldn't say an incredible one or one that hasn't been matched in scope. But even if it was, you're still just going on about graphics graphics graphics. Which are ultimately a minor aspect of what defines a game.

Even if the diminishing returns you talk about are as diminishing as you say they are, it's still completely irrelevant. That's not where the important changes that define games are happening.

>> No.2748578

>>2748565
>Super Mario 64's next Gen sequel had the exact same graphics but more enemies on screen, then the previous title is now completely left in the dust?

Not left in the dust but it would be a fundamentally extremely different game. That's the point.

> I said that the visual differences are more subtle than ever before,
Yes, and I'm trying to get it through your head that visuals aren't everything. Graphics aren't what make a game feel old.

>> No.2748579

>>2746445
>I was 9 when the 360 came out
I'm feeling too fucking old.
How do I stop aging?
Please, help me.

>> No.2748583

>>2747181
>the obsession with hyper realism
This drives me nuts. Especially since a lot of people hole "realism" their standard as to whether or not a game is good. It's even funnier when they start talking about realism in high fantasy environments with dragons and shit.

>> No.2748585

>>2748575
>you're still just going on about graphics graphics graphics

It's literally what you see with your face and eyes at all times. Gameplay is widely varied and can't really be pegged as retro unless you're talking about Mario bros style platforming or some other style of gameplay that was popular then and isn't now. Which even further proves my point, now that games are in well crafted 3D, how on earth is gameplay going to be the deciding factor in what constitutes whether a game is retro or not? Is THPS5 retro because it's similar to THPS2? Is a game from the N64 era not considered retro because it's gameplay isn't retro? Who decides what is and isn't retro gameplay? What are you even talking about?

>> No.2748587

>>2748578
>Graphics aren't what make a game feel old.

They most certainly do. Now you're just lying because you're taking the phrase "graphics don't mean everything" to the umpteenth level.

>> No.2748593

>>2748585
Just because it's not as easy to spot differences in gameplay as it is graphics, doesn't make it less important. Visually PS2 and 360 era games don't look wildly different. But massive changes in game design happened over those years.

Again when people complain endlessly about modern games sucking, they're not talking about the graphics. It's gameplay changes, social media stuff, online, micro transactions. There are far more than just graphics that define what era a game comes from. And that change isn't slowing down even a little.


>>2748587
Graphics really don't mean everything. If you think they do then I'm wasting my time because you're too stupid to understand something so fundamental.

>> No.2748594

>>2746441
>People's expectations continually rise with games, which is why people have difficulty getting into older games.
my expectations rise with games, which is why I have difficulty getting into newer games (too slow progress rate - not enough of an improvement over previous games)

>> No.2748604

>>2748593
>Graphics really don't mean everything. If you think they do

Nobody said that you moron. You're pretending I did when I didn't.

>Visually PS2 and 360 era games don't look wildly different.

Kek YES THEY FUCKING DO

I've been avoiding that comparison since my first post.

>But massive changes in game design happened over those years.

And who they fuck decides what is retro gameplay and what isn't? Graphical fidelity is literally the only thing that is improved because it can be measured through technical figures such as resolution etc etc etc, even if you prefer how one game looks, the technical aspects are always increasing, BUT, the rate at which they are increasing is slowed due to diminishing returns on power VS visual fidelity, hence gamecube era and up should turn retro at a slower pace, and DO turn retro at a slower pace.

Have we gone full circle? Would you like me to keep explaining this to you?

>> No.2748609

>>2746445
I think I'm about a year older than you and largely in the same boat. Games from the 90s have aged much better than ones from the 70s, unsurprisingly. OP's stretching his own logic a bit thin here.

>> No.2748612

>>2748604
Well when I said graphics aren't what make a game old you replied with "They most certainly do" What did you mean? Are graphics that important that they're defining thing that makes a game old or are they not? If you're saying they are then I say you're putting a lot more emphasis on them than I think is warranted.

>And who they fuck decides what is retro gameplay and what isn't?
Well if we go with the definition of the word, than anything that's out of style.

We are going in circles because we fundamentally disagree. You're pinning graphics as the by far the most important defining feature of what era a game is from. I am trying to explain that I fundamentally disagree with that.

Gameplay and design are just as fundamental, if not more so. That's why no one mistakes Shovel Knight for an NES era game even though it's made to look like one.

Just because you can't measure game design changes the way you can increasing pixels and polygon counts is completely irrelevant. That doesn't make them any less important.

>> No.2748613

>>2748604
>gamecube era and up should turn retro at a slower pace, and DO turn retro at a slower pace.
GameCube will never be retro >>>/v/

>> No.2748620

>>2747750
don't use shit example images for your points then

>More processing power is needed to make smaller and smaller incremental jumps in graphicall quality
it's more because hardware advances are slower than some years ago, and not as much because of computational requirements as you'd think

>> No.2748624

I WOULD play more Atari games, if they were as deep as M.U.L.E
Sadly most Atari games are excruciatingly simple.

>> No.2748626

>>2748612
>Well when I said graphics aren't what make a game old you replied with "They most certainly do" What did you mean?

I meant that graphics can certainly make a game look dated. This should be pretty obvious.

>Well if we go with the definition of the word, than anything that's out of style.

What about all those retro games that have gameplay that didn't go out of style? Not everything is a mario clone.

>That's why no one mistakes Shovel Knight for an NES era game even though it's made to look like one.

Shovel Knight uses a color pallet that wasn't available at the time. That being said, I've seen young people confuse it for a NES title, also it came out in an era where most games weren't that, so it stands out. Also, it was made to look retro BECAUSE GRAPHICS ARE SO IMPORTANT TO THE FEEL OF A GAME.

>We are going in circles because we fundamentally disagree.

I don't think we disagree as much as you're saying, I think that you're projecting the opinions of others onto my argument and then attack things I don't even believe. You're still stuck in the "graphics aren't important phase" where you parade around proclaiming how important gameplay is, and you're getting lost in yourself.

I know that gameplay is the most important thing, that's why I'm on a retro board. But me saying that graphics have a large impact on how old a game seems does not equal me saying that graphics are more important than gameplay. I'm saying that visuals are a more objective and emperical way of measuring the age of software than gameplay because they can be measured by real numbers in a way that gameplay cannot be, which makes gameplay a pretty shitty way of measuring how old a game is. Neither is a perfect gauge, buy one is lesser than the other for purpose of dating games.

>> No.2748639

>>2748626
I agree graphics can make a game look dated, but they're certainly not the only thing.

While I'm sure there are a few people who confused Shovel Knight for an NES game, anyone familiar with games from that era would never make that mistake. It's design is distinctly modern.

It's not that I don't think graphics are important, or that I don't like nice ones. I'm an artist and very visually attuned, aesthetics in a game are very important to be indeed. But I think they're only one of many aspects of what defines a game and what era that game is from.

>> No.2748730

>>2748292
So someone's not allowed to play older games more than newer games if they're younger? It's just impossible and if I load up DOS a lightning bolt from Zeus will smite me for my heresy? Or a magical fairy will come and done me with a fedora and a pair of hipster glasses?

>> No.2748762

>>2748730
>trying to hard to justify trying to hard
Not even the anon you're replying to.

>> No.2748801

I grew up only rarely playing the Gamecube, yet SNES and N64 are probably my favorite consoles (Gamecube is probably my favorite for multiplayer though). I guess the Nintendo fanboyism stuck with me.

>> No.2749672

>>2746445
>I was 9 when the 360 came out
thats fucked up

>> No.2749674

>>2749672
He's almost 20 now.

>> No.2749726

>>2748417
People play old games all the time. It's all a matter of how available they are. Atari gets no love because they aren't still around in some form. Nintendo and sega shit from the 3rd through 6th gen ended up on the Wii's virtual console, playstation's 5th gen+ is available through the PSN store, and the same goes for Xbox live. People will always go back and play the classics, even if they become more marginalized. It's just too easy to throw a rom on a store, and even cheaper to emulate on PC.

>> No.2749743

>>2746441

>These consoles really weren't strong enough to do 3D properly. The first to do so was probably Dreamcast. But the biggest issues relate to camera and control schemes. Take 3D games like Vagrant Story, or the N64 Castlevanias. The Demon Souls series just plays so much better and smoother, and it is mostly down to better camera and control systems. Having a controllable camera makes all the difference. Or RE series. Re4,5,6 just play smoother with direct aiming, camera over the shoulder. Compare Metal Gear to MGSV for similar changes. You may not like the newer games, and a lot of them are bad, but they still have superior control and cameras.

Mario 64, a launch title, had a controllable camera. It became the norm for platformers on that console, such as Banjo-Kazooie. So fuck off with this historical inaccuracy.

Your assertion "strong enough to do 3D properly" is clearly just based on your own personal definition / viewpoint of what "properly" entails. Wave Race did 3D "properly." Pilotwings 64 did 3D "properly." Twisted Metal for PlayStation did 3D "properly." You're just making shit up.

>> No.2749761

>>2746689
>A little more true with Atari games but there are still kids who enjoy them.
hell no nobody gives a shit about atari anymore

>> No.2749764

>>2746746
that's not early. Try hard drivin. nobody gives a shit about that

>> No.2749812

>>2746441
>Only those who grew up with Famicom, snes, mega Drive really care about them.

I don't know where the fuck you've been lately but there's tons of people who never gave a crap about older consoles getting into them now thanks to emulation, retro reviewers in Youtube like AVGN or JonTron, and indie games taking direct inspiration from older games.


Also when it comes to Atari stuff it's not lack of interest that causes hardly any discussion it's the simplicity of the games that doesn't really allow much of a conversation without saying what hasn't already been said. That aside we usually do have an Atari general here once or twice a month where people will bring up any Atari game they like in order to create a long lasting thread, just don't expect one thread solely for discussing Maze Craze anytime soon.

>> No.2749820

>>2746441
I have to call bullshit on your entire post, mate. It's just your butt hurt overthinking about something that you barely understand (if at all) and then trying your best to talk about it in a public forum without seeming mildly retarded, and failing.

Also, every console with 3D capabilities did it properly. You simply didn't like it. And that's a fact, kiddo.

Hell, even Resident Evil, which had 2D environments, did 3D properly. How can you NOT do 3D properly!? You're a retard. Go away now.

>> No.2750492

Starcraft 2 has better controls and pathfinding AI than SC1 and that actually makes it a shitty game as it's all about clashing deathballs rather than complex multifront combat.

>> No.2750513
File: 47 KB, 495x363, tail of the sun9736935.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
2750513

>>2749820
>I have to call bullshit on your entire post
That's what almost this whole thread has been. OP is certified retarded.

Even still though, at the very least in terms of camera controls 3D games have come a long way. Also there's most certainly some 3D control schemes that are worse than others. As great a game as Tail of the Sun is in many ways, it's camera really sucked and that took away from the game somewhat.

>> No.2750847

>>2747218
thats the joke newfag

>> No.2753667

BUUUUUUUUUUUUUUMP!

>> No.2753685

Not really. Atari was too basic, most games didn't provide a complete gaming experience on their own. Anyone who isn't a complete faggot can enjoy a good NES game.

>> No.2753910

I grew up starting with NES, but when I got older I weirdly found Swordquest: Earthworld for the Atari and weirdly got obsessed with it, but didn't get anywhere and realized the puzzles were bullshit.

Oh, but Adventure was pretty cool, I played it on all 3 difficulties.

>> No.2753919

>>2746441
>Notice how /vr/ never talks about Atari games. Because only those who grew up with them care about them.
The first console I owned was an Atari 2600.

The fact of the matter is, all the games for it were so limited by the technology of the time that there isn't much to talk about.

They were all simple games, and better versions of the good ones were made for more powerful systems later.

Yeah, there's nostalgia there, but not much in the way of actual discussion.

>> No.2753942

>>2746441
that is true. i agree with you. i tried nes games but 98% were no fun.

>> No.2754042

>>2753942
If someone made hax that replaced the sprites with mario and zelda would you have more fun?

>>
Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Name
E-mail
Subject
Comment
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.
Captcha
Action