/vr/'s lack of diversity

[Anonymous No.3331724]

Why can we discuss games released post-2000 as long as they were released on PSX or DC but can't do the same with PC games in 2000 or 2001 for example? Games that run on pre-milenial hardware, mind you (Win98/pentium 3). This is unfairly discriminatory and unacceptable. /vr/ needs to embrace diversity and love all platforms by equal

[Anonymous No.3331736]

>>3331724
Because the mods are fucking idiots and are more interested in enforcing a power fantasy rather than topicality.

[Anonymous No.3331785]

Most Windows 98 optimized PC games fly but I think it's mainly none of the retro police willing to be fucked enough to check release dates.

[Anonymous No.3331794]

>Baldur's Gate is A-OK
>But Baldur's II is totally NOT RETRO REEEE despite running on the same engine
>although FFIX released in 2001 is fine to discuss

Rules need a serious reform here

[Anonymous No.3331836]

>>3331794
Let's just call it 2004.

[Anonymous No.3331910]

>>3331794
The line has to be drawn somewhere.
For consoles you have the Dreamcast banned in its entirety even though it had games released before 2000.

[Anonymous No.3331959]

>>3331724
>>3331794
No matter what rules are established there will always be something that just barely falls out of line with them not allowed.Furthermore the rule was established because you had some games like Halo still being compatible with Win 98 as opposed to something from 2016 coming out on an older console which would have the same exact hardware and software limitations from the era they came out in.

[Anonymous No.3332015]

>>3331724
>embrace diversity
jew detected

This all-white pic is sure to make OP seething with rage.