/vr/ - Retro Games

[Anonymous No.3729451]

Do you prefer retro games over modern ones? If so, why?

[Anonymous No.3729458]

>>3729451
I don't know much about modern games, so I play games I know.

[Anonymous No.3729459]

Modern games emphasize graphics and story over fun. That's the most underrated word in all of video gaming, fun. You can talk to me all day about frame rates and resolutions but I really don't care.

[Anonymous No.3729462]

>>3729459
This. Old games are just fun at the end of the day. Modern day gaming is presuming itself to be something other than a whimsical electronic toy.

[Anonymous No.3729470]

>>3729459
I enjoy modern and retro games equally, but there are both shitty modern games and retro games. For modern games, to me, good story makes up for the uninteresting gameplay. I can see why others wouldn't think so. Modern games feel more like movies desu... but I still enjoy them.

[Anonymous No.3729479]

>>3729470
>For modern games, to me, good story makes up for the uninteresting gameplay.

For me this is unforgivable. I have nothing against a game with good graphics and a good story, but those should take a backseat to the quality of gameplay.

I vary rarely play modern games. At first it was because of the fact that I couldn't afford a new console and the current gen is so far piracy proof. But really there are few games that are really appealing to me. If I bought a PS4 what would I play? I can't take risks because I have very little money. I can't try random things because I can't pirate.

I don't care if it makes me a pleb or not but I absolutely love the GTA games. They are getting better with each generation. I like that I can have an equal amount of fun just fucking around as I can actually following the story of the game. I think GTA 5 was way easier than 4 though, minor complaint there.

But while there's one huge franchise I can look forward on the latest gen I can find hundreds of games I want to play on retro consoles. It's cheaper too. It's pretty much a no brainer.

[Anonymous No.3729482]

>>3729451
It's so cosy to revisit those childhood memories.
The music alone puts me 20 years back in time, and I really relax.

Good times, good times :D

[Anonymous No.3729512]

>>3729482

[Anonymous No.3729516]

>>3729512
Yeah pretty much.

[Anonymous No.3729607]

I practically live on the retro channel on Twitch. Retro games are simply more involving. It tests your skill. Your reactions. And the graphics are very warm and comfy.

[Anonymous No.3729686]

>>3729451
I have no preference about when they were made and released, I just like games. Just like music and stories there have been amazing games every year.

[Anonymous No.3729691]

>>3729451
I prefer retro games for raw gameplay and the huge amount of experimentation.
They're like the wild west of videogames.
There's a few modern titles that I like, but mostly indie games.

[Anonymous No.3729697]

I enjoy good games dear OP.
Old, new, known, not so known.
My taste might be very different than yours, but I respect your opinion if you like I game I don't. Old or new.

Have a nice day, man.

[Anonymous No.3729708]

I enjoy both and have since the 90s focused on collecting the stuff that's cheapest (6th gen right now, with 7th gen dropping fast) while playing lots of new games to find the good ones I'll buy later and replaying my favorite older games.

I think that a lot of the "new games are shit" concept comes from the constantly expanding gamer demographics. As gaming becomes more and more popular, the most successful games naturally become more casualized.

However, due to the much much better digital distribution channels so many more and specialized games come out. It just takes a little more effort to find the modern games that have good game play and/or challenge than to find those retro games as those qualities were more important to a game's success back in the day.

[Anonymous No.3729723]

>>3729697
Would that more people who post here have your attitude.

[Anonymous No.3729728]

>>3729451
I have the full suite of 'current gen' consoles, but I have a large assortment of retro too. I like both quite a bit. This modern generation of gaming has disappointed me overall, but I mostly just play what I'm in the mood for. Right now, that's Game Boy games. A few weeks ago, I couldn't stop playing Forza Horizon 3, it just depends on how I feel. I like discussing retro games a lot more than discussing modern shit though, that's why I spend all my 4chan time here.

[Anonymous No.3729746]

As gaming's userbase increased and the budget of games increased to where they are often "too big to fail" for studios they are very risk averse and pour their money into visual fidelity and marketing (which will always yield them the biggest returns as long as the game is not fundamentally broken in gameplay) at the expense of everything else.

[Anonymous No.3729750]

>>3729746
Isn't the new CoD failing because it's a huge shit sandwich?

[Anonymous No.3729752]

It's not about retro vs. modern.

I prefer games that are PRODUCTS rather than SERVICES. Fuck off with your pre-order exclusives, your labyrinth of overlapping DLC packs, your forced online integration, and your planned obsolescence. Just sell me a motherfucking game from beginning to end at a reasonable price, and then leave me the fuck alone.

For this reason, I mostly play games up to 6th gen and early 7th gen. For more modern stuff, I mostly just play indie and small-budget games like Shadowrun Returns.

[Anonymous No.3729771]

>>3729451
YE I enjoy the false sense of superiority.
Especially playing some badass shit like 4 player bomberman or NBA Jam on the Genesis.
Maybe do some fightan games on the arcade sticks,

[Anonymous No.3729780]

>>3729752
Monster Hunter Generations is an excellent action game with hundreds to thousands of hours of gameplay, free DLC, free online play and retails for around $40. There are still good big budget games out there that do this stuff well.

[Anonymous No.3729805]

>>3729780
Thanks for the recommendation, I'll look into it.
Honestly I get tired of trying to sort out which new games are good and which are just wallet rapers. Just reading over a list of DLC makes my eyes glaze over. And in-game purchasing and upselling is the most immersion-breaking thing on the planet. When I'm playing a game, the last thing I want to think about are my personal finances. That's what I'm trying to escape from by playing a fucking game.

[Anonymous No.3729806]

>>3729780
>4 people dodging Teostra's flame without any trouble
It got casualized as fuck. With dodge+2 and evade up dodging that was still hard.

[Anonymous No.3729812]

I'm fine with both retro and modern but retro contains a lot more of my interests. There's just this element of 80's and 90's games that went extinct after. I was fearing this was a nostalgia thing only being able to play what I had at the time after experiencing classic games I was never able to play before I realized I was so much more immersed.

[Anonymous No.3729813]

>>3729805
On the whole I like DLC. With rare exception it's just little extras and easily ignored if it doesn't interest me. But when it does, it's fun. But then I don't really play games to try and escape and the price of most DLC is negligible anyways.

I think Mon Hun is one of the best series of all time though and it has continued to impress me how well Capcom has been handling it.

[Anonymous No.3729814]

>>3729451
1. Multiplayer was more civil when the other players had to be close enough that you risked getting beat down for misbehavior.

2. Children have an instinctive need to put scratches and thumb-marks on all optical media. They will literally tap into superhuman breaking-and-entering powers like kid Gohan if they sense the presence of a disk in playable condition.

3. Before the age of DLC, game companies had only one chance to get it right. Now, they get to release crappy pre-alpha versions, consumers (unwisely) trust them to make it right later, and maybe they'll get around to it some day when politicians commute to work on the Flying Nimbus.

4. If I wanted to support pay-to-win games, I wouldn't have quit Magic the Gathering.

[Anonymous No.3729821]

>>3729806
They were using one of the limit skills I think and it has a build up to it. Not actually all that useful practically, that's just the first gif that popped up. On the whole Teo is still pretty nasty this time around. They've casualized it in a lot of ways to make the series more accessible to people who haven't been playing it for over 10 years. But there's still plenty of room for challenge if that's what you want out of the game. MH has always been good for that.

[Anonymous No.3729827]

>unfinished products, bugged to hell
>generic, derivative games, no incentive to try new ideas
>8:2 ratio (8 shooting games, 2 spread among the rest)
>games that shouldn't take themselves seriously do, those that should, don't
>unsavory business practices
>day 1 dlc
>locked in disc content
>passes
>fragmented sale of the game content overall
>pay to win, pay walls, artificial difficulty designed to force purchase of power ups
>pay to debug this game for us go- i mean, get premium early access(tm)
>unironical gamer culture (the most cringe worthy off all being the current pc gamer hardware trend)
>rampant, unironical beligerant fanboyism and brand worship
>no more separation between the game world and the real world (pic related)

Things are bleak.

[Anonymous No.3729836]

>>3729827
>Things are bleak.

I always feel bad for you and those like you. Every year more games I love come out than I have time for.

[Anonymous No.3729850]

>>3729805
Don't buy it now. MHXX, the same game but with more content (G-Rank, new monster, etc.), was announced past year.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGDJ_2IW3qI

[Anonymous No.3729895]

>>3729780
>1000s of hours
Yeah, I don't need a game designed to suck my life away. I play a game, not live it.

[Anonymous No.3729936]

>>3729895
Don't get me wrong, it's not like an MMO where it's designed to be a time sink. As games go it's actually quite good with your time and it's almost all gameplay. Not a lot of story or cutscenes, just going out and hunting.

I say potentially thousands of hours of gameplay because there are 13 weapon types, each of which has it's own learning curve and a boatload of quests. I maxed out the clock on the first Monster Hunter long before I was done with it and the games have only been getting bigger and bigger. I don't put thousands of hours into each one, and it's not necessary to. But it's certainly possible with how much they cram into the games.

[Anonymous No.3729949]

On one hand retro games feel a lot more like games than modern games do with a few exceptions (See: Shenmue). On the other hand modern games feel a lot less stressful to play compared to retro games that are intentionally made insanely difficult to make a 10 minute game last 40 hours. Anything Capcom made until the GameCube was notorious for this type of shit and they did it in the worst way. They'd have the first few levels be an absolute snooze to beat and then the level after those comes out of nowhere and beats the everliving shit out of you to the point where you don't want to play it anymore.

I dunno man, I kinda like both. Two of my top 5 favorite games of all time are from the year 2010 but a lot of my favorite games are also retro shit (Especially pinball tables such as Creature from the Black Lagoon and fucking Theatre of Magic)

[Anonymous No.3729965]

>>3729949
>I dunno man, I kinda like both. Two of my top 5 favorite games of all time are from the year 2010 but a lot of my favorite games are also retro shit

I'm very similar.

[Anonymous No.3729980]

>>3729451
Yes.

Tired of seeing niggers in my vidya

[Anonymous No.3729993]

>>3729780
Lol my vegetarian ass tried to play monhun 4 and I felt a huge wave of guilt after killing those peaceful herbivores minding their got dang business in the tutorial so I uninstalled :).

[Anonymous No.3729995]

>>3729451
I would say, yeah, I do like retro games more than modern games although favorite game, Terraria, is a modern game. It embraces many of the qualities i appreciate about retro games though.
It is
>Pick up and play
>Simple and straight forward
>Time to gameplay is low
>Repayable as all hell
Not to mention the graphical style which obviously draws on 2D platformers. Not necessarily great, but it fits the style.

What i really dislike about most modern AAA games is that theres so much bullshit that dilutes what actually matters. Loads of crafting systems, outposts to capture, dumb towers to climb, side missions that dont DO anything.

[Anonymous No.3729997]

>>3729965
Fallout New Vegas and Red Dead Redemption are my 2nd and 3rd favorite games of all time respectively. I really like the freedom in these games rather than the bullshit in a lot of retro/modern games that force you down a certain path after a two hour long cutscene and a huge ass unnecessary tutorial.

[Anonymous No.3730002]

>>3729993
Vegetation has feelings too, anon. Those herbivores spend all day eating plants. Besides, being eaten eventually is the destiny of all living things. Only humans go out of their way to burn or embalm bodies in the vain hope of escaping the cycle of existence, but it's a pointless waste.

[Anonymous No.3730006]

>>3729995
Terraria loses me when you get further along and enemies start just ignoring walls and dirt and the encounter rate spikes so the time you want to spend exploring or building is taken up fighting endless waves of enemies that seem to completely ignore the terrain of the game.

One day I will go back and finally finish my massive project though.

>>3729997
Fallout has always felt like going to the dentist to me for some reason, but Red Dead is easily one of my favorite games of all time. Part of what I like about JC2 is the complete lack of having to follow it's story at all. Hundreds of hours of goofing off, blowing shit up and playing it like open world Sega Rally and I only ever did 2 actual missions.

[Anonymous No.3730009]

>>3729993
eating plants is murder just like eating meat is. we're meant to eat living things. kind of how nature works.

[Anonymous No.3730016]

>>3730002
>>3730009
Vegetables are the scum of the earth and should experience all of the suffering their non-existent nervous systems can process. That's why I'm a vegetarian kiddo, those herbivores are doing God's work purging the rooted scourge from our universe.

[Anonymous No.3730020]

>>3729995
Why are you fucking Americans under the impression that AAA is synonymous with "Good"?

[Anonymous No.3730027]

>>3730016
Have fun suffocating on your CO2. :)

[Anonymous No.3730035]

>>3730016
Fair enough, hombre.

[Anonymous No.3730037]

>>3730020
Because AAA is synonymous with "good". They are typically the games that many, many people enjoy and play. Whether or not they appeal to you, any AAA game that is successful by virtue of them appealing to huge numbers of people they can objectively be categorized as good.

The real question is why you think your taste is better than the taste of someone who likes something different from you.

[Anonymous No.3730041]

>>3730037
It has no definition, it is not an established term, it's literally devoid of all meaning. Of course you spent too much time drinking knock-off whiskey at your bachelor party before your sister's shotgun wedding to understand that.

AAA does not mean Good. IT doesn't mean fucking anything, you idiot hillbilly.

[Anonymous No.3730051]

>>3730041
lol nope

Stay mad though.

[Anonymous No.3730064]

>>3730027
It's what I deserve for being full of fiber.

[Anonymous No.3730068]

>>3730006
I kinda agree with you on the hardmode critiques, and it definitely is a bit cheap, but I like the basic gameloop so much that i'm willing to put up with this design flaw.

[Anonymous No.3730070]

>>3730020
I'm from Denmark. born and raised. Not sure where you got American from

[Anonymous No.3730078]

Sorry OP, but you need a Steam account, a uPlay account, and a constant Internet connection to view this comment.

[Anonymous No.3730081]

>>3730037
AAA pertains to a game's budget. It is not an indication of quality. In fact, the vast majority of AAA games are vapid, dumbed down experiences with sloppy gameplay.

[Anonymous No.3730089]

>>3730081
>In fact, the vast majority of AAA games are vapid, dumbed down experiences with sloppy gameplay.

That's your opinion as someone who doesn't like those kinds of games. A series only gets to be AAA when it has a fanbase large enough to support a massive budget.

You can hate Call of Duty: Whatever Warfare X7 all you want, but that doesn't change that those games are very good at satisfying a specific and large demographic of gamers.

You are simply stuck in the mindset that your personal tastes are better than those of people who like different things.

[Anonymous No.3730094]

>>3730089
AAA games are more about the graphics/tech and stort than they are gameplay.

AAA games are to video games as Blockbusters are to film. AAA games can be enjoyable, but generally speaking they are casualized games meant for a wide (read: undiscerning) audience.

[Anonymous No.3730104]

>>3730094
>AAA games are more about the graphics/tech and stort than they are gameplay.

A short sighted opinion by someone unfamiliar with them.

>AAA games are to video games as Blockbusters are to film.

Correct. You can choose to like different things, as I do. But that doesn't make my taste or your taste "better" than someone who likes blockbuster movies. There's little good in being pretentious about your personal preferences.

For the record, I don't find CoD and most FPS games enjoyable at all. I haven't seriously played any FPS game since Tribes 2 and action movies like Mad Maxx:FR literally put me to sleep. But I'm also aware that my tastes aren't universal and there are millions of people out there who love that.

[Anonymous No.3730118]

>>3729458
This
Im only 24 but i only play the games i could afford to play growing up. Seeing as i couldn't afford anything that was considered new in 2000s i still mostly play Genesis and mid to late 90s pc titles.

Also its nice to actually be able to beat them now unlike when i was a kid.

[Anonymous No.3730124]

>>3730089
No it gets to be AAA when someone throws a huge amount of money at it. That's it. Seriously, it just means "big budget" and only a fool would think that you can make something good by throwing tons of money at it.

You could give me $500 for making a single bottle of wine but I guarantee you that wine will be disgusting on the grounds of "I don't know how to make wine"

[Anonymous No.3730125]

>casualized
>undiscerning
>AAA
FWEEEEEEEEEEET

[Anonymous No.3730130]

>>3729479
Why "should"? Why cant there be different kinds of games with different strengths?

[Anonymous No.3730139]

>>3730104

I like some AAA games the same way I sometimes enjoy seeing a comic book movie or eating fast food or some other dumb, formulaic thing. It might be crap but sometimes enjoying crap is OK. Just as long as you dont take it too seriously or consume too much of it

[Anonymous No.3730146]

Modern games are like modern music. There's good stuff out there if you take the time to look. Just stay away from the popular crap that the kids are into.

[Anonymous No.3730152]

>>3730104
>correct

Weren't you the same dumbass who was arguing that AAA = quality earlier in the thread?

[Anonymous No.3730163]

>>3730152
Indeed. Blockbuster movies are generally "good" in the same way blockbuster AAA games are. They're big budget projects that appeal to the masses, that's their goal. Occasionally they fail spectacularly but for the most part they're successful enough justify their budgets which is the point of it all.

Again, that doesn't mean you will like them necessarily, but that's the whole point.

[Anonymous No.3730168]

>>3730146
You know why all the music in the 80s was better?

Because everyone forgot the shit music.

[Anonymous No.3730172]

>>3730163
You have a strange definition of 'good', my friend.

[Anonymous No.3730181]

>>3730172
I know. Most people think "good" means what they like, as opposed to "good" referring to how many people in general like something.

Again, you or I not being interested in a given popular AAA game doesn't make it "bad". It just makes it something that doesn't appeal to us. If it does appeal to thousands of other people and bring them entertainment then it's by definition "good" at doing what it's doing.

Same with action movies. Mad Maxx Fury Road is one of the only movies I can remember that bored me so thoroughly that consciously decided to just take a nap through the second half. But that doesn't make it a bad movie. It's overwhelming popularity speaks to that. It just makes it a movie that didn't appeal to me. Neither my taste or the MM fan's taste is "wrong", they're both just different.

[Anonymous No.3730187]

>>3730104
You didn't like Max Max: Fury Road?

Yo man, fuck me for almost getting triggered by your opinion. It's yours, and there's nothing wrong with it. I just thought that movie was great.

[Anonymous No.3730195]

>>3730181
In fairness, I never once said they were bad. That must have been someone else. Theres multiple people replying to you.

[Anonymous No.3730197]

>>3730187
And that's cool. You're more than free to like it as much as you do. That's the thing about opinons, they're not all the same. I get bored with action movies and long action sequences anyways, so it's just not my kind of movie.

[Anonymous No.3730209]

>>3730078
>>implying you don't need internet to view this website to begin with

[Anonymous No.3730252]

>>3729836

Never implied that things were perfect in the past and absolute shit now.

There are good games coming out today, but if you don't think the business practices of the present are highly questionable, you're just in denial.

[Anonymous No.3730262]

>>3730252
>but if you don't think the business practices of the present are highly questionable, you're just in denial.

I'm not in denial about that, but I also think the business practices of the /vr/ era were just as questionable.

[Anonymous No.3730267]

>>3730262
Such as?

[Anonymous No.3730286]

>>3729451
>>3729459
>>3729462
>>3729470

All that.

Back in the 90s and 80s the game designers really had to get as much out of their games as they could otherwise people wouldnt buy them. Some companies flatlined and got bought because of making just a couple bad titles. Others were able to make some crap games and not feel the sting much.

Fast forward to modern day, on the heels of ID Software's gamer rush to get the best graphics cards ("because you need the best card to run our game, and it better be geforce because we like them") . . . that has changed everybody's priorities.

Modern games also suffer from Remake Syndrome and sequels are suffering from Gimmicks.

For sequels and series restarts they make the mistake repeatedly of "Lets do this completely different than the original" and that suuuucks. Especially when they Keep something from the original (like Doom 4 has Cyberdemon fight).

I would even put in a mention for Resident Evil 5, 6, Revelations . . . ive not heard anything good about them while RE4 is still Stellar.

And Silent Hill has faded into obscurity even though supposedly they're still making more of them.

Like Hollywood... it seems the Lake is Dry now.

> but the problem is if you focus heavily ON gameplay and fun without making sure the graphics are top notch. . . and it IS a 3D game and its Not cartoony like Mario . . .
> you're going to get fucked because the priorities have changed.

With Retro and sub-par graphics you Know that you're in for needing to use your imagination and suspension of disbelief, and you can set aside the graphical performance.

But if the graphics are trying to be top notch, by god it better be realistic and the Faces of the characters better not look like plastic, because otherwise thats going to really get in the way of enjoyability

> and people will throw tomatoes at it even if it has a good story and its fun

Unless the graphics are obviously bad for what its trying to do, it tends to get a hall pass.

[Anonymous No.3730291]

>>3730267
I think arcades are awful and leaf to a lot of shitty game design.

[Anonymous No.3730320]

>>3730181

Ive noticed with modern Action Movies they're over-doing it with camera angles and like overdoing seasoning on a food it usually spoils it.

Too much hovering around with drone cameras, too many smooth circular moving camera sweeps to cover the action.

I remember one thing from some 80s and 90s action movies with car chases was Static camera positions like on the ground where you see this massive Truck come into view and smash something out of the way right in front of the camera (but the camera doesn't move).

Whether doing it with CGI or camera work they forgot that you really can over-do it.

The perspective should be from generally what an average person might see in a movie

. . . when some guy jumps off a bridge to land on a car you should just see from the other side of the bridge the guy jumping off, then maybe cut to a street view below where you see him slam down on the car.

> not follow the guy off the bridge like you're playing an over-the-shoulder 3rd person game

> and from behind on the street level is ideal since you see him jump from behind.

And then you see the car from the front at a distance as its swerving to stay on the road as Deadpool is giving people a hard time in the car.

Then perhaps as a director you have permission to cut to an in-car scene where Melt-Face is turning other people into melt-faces because the car has basically stopped.


thats just to give an example

Although "There Will Be Blood" wasnt known for action the beginning of the movie had some downright cringeworthy stuff - him snapping his ladder and falling down the mine shaft - and an oil worker being stumped by a falling timber.

Those were cringeworthy because the camera was fixed - you see the ladder snap and he falls down the hole out of view. One moment the oil worker is doing his thing, next you see the timber come down and hear a sickening smash and he gets piledrived (you dont follow the wreckage down onto him).

[Anonymous No.3730325]

I don't, I just don't let time stop me from playing good games.

Plebty of modern stuff is fucking fantastic, and there's lots of smaller projects on handhelds and such in the same vein as the classics even if you're not into modern game styles.

Gravity Rush 2 is almost out and I'm hype as fuck.

[Anonymous No.3730335]

>>3729479

Strongly disagree

A game can be good on any merit. It helps if the gameplay is at least tolerable though. But there are occasional exceptions.

[Anonymous No.3730338]

>>3729451
I like 2D artwork with talent and budget behind it

[Anonymous No.3730342]

>>3730320
I see where you're coming from and agree to a point. But I also thought a lot action movies of earlier eras were pretty dull too. Even as a kid when my friend were all over Rambo and Deathwish I remember loving Cocoon and Out of Africa. Diff'rent strokes...

[Anonymous No.3730351]

I don't think people who dislike modern games across the board look very hard.

Gunvolt 2, Shovel Knight, or Shantae and the Pirate's Curse would have made fantastic 4th gen games, and those are all pretty recent. If we count 6th gen as modern, stuff like Onimusha or PS2 Shinobi could have been equally fantastic on 5th gen consoles with respective graphical downgrades.

People still make SHMUPs all the time.

Just don't play AAA trash

[Anonymous No.3730440]

There are plenty of great modern games, just be a bit discerning. That said I play retro ones more often since they're more geared to how I play games these days. I don't usually play for hours straight any more, I pick something up for like twenty to thirty minutes then move on to something else. As long as you're not playing an rpg, retro games lend themselves to that very well, while the only modern games that do are online only fps games, which I'm generally not into.

But if a person can't appreciate what both old and new games can bring to the table I feel bad for them. Don't drink the cynical 4chan koolaid, not everything is terrible. A lot of it's pretty good.

[Anonymous No.3730698]

>>3729451
No DRM
No having to pay an extra $50 to get the rest of the game
No 5 gb patches at launch
No annoying 5 hour tutorial levels
No hand holding
No "muh murky brown gritty hihg teknikal grayfix" bullshit yes i know there are exceptions and some of them are good, but it wasn't what we have today where every year another COD and battlefield with a slap dash campaign thrown together to get people to pay another $60 to keep online alive
No slap dash thrown together in a 15 year old game engine with inexcusable bugs on day 1 launch

Just pure, quick and easy fun

[Anonymous No.3730847]

>>3729451
Gameplay > graphics, many modern games fail to realize this.

also, it always interests me in how developers of older consoles always tried to push the system to its limits. Modern game developers are lazy and most new games don't even run properly on its hardware.

[Anonymous No.3730993]

>>3730291

The dificulty barrier on arcade titles can, for the most part, be surpassed by skill.

Some modern games - specifically many mobile titles - cannot, I mean literally cannot be beaten without purchase of special itens.

[Anonymous No.3731021]

>>3729451
I prefer retro games, because I feel as though video games, like all commodities, further followed the capitalist way as their popularity grew. Sure there was always an aspect of making money from them, but as greed took over now the market is dominated by vapid sequels, rehashed, clones, for the sake of churning a bigger, faster profit. It's the same way with movies if you want a paralell

As an example, now many modern games, especially on PCs, are released incomplete. They're very buggy because they had to fart it out as quickly as possible (Dragon Age Inquisition for eg.) and you're expected to patch them. But ultimately you paid a higher price for an incomplete game. You're beta testing on behalf of the developpers, but paying for it.

They can also have a slew of expansions, each one costing tens of dollars for a mere 5 hours of additional gameplay. They're afterthoughts.

[Anonymous No.3731071]

>>3729949
I have the opposite. Hard games that I play for a few rounds a day are often the best for me. One issue I've had as more stuff takes up my time is a sense of guilt when I play a game for four hours in a row. With older games an hour of playing is often enough, since there's more practice and defeat.

That's something I see on this board that I don't always get. Most people on here comment on having a lot less time to play games, and thus they don't want to play a grindy or tough game. For me, grindy and hard games are often the most relaxing. Hard games only get frustrating when you focus too much on completing stuff, rather than just enjoying playing.

[Anonymous No.3731082]

>>3730698

You forgot the accounts.

"Hey can I play X?"
>"Sure but dont use my character."
"Ok,ill make a new one"
6mins later....
"I cant make a seperate character on your account, I need my own account"
>"Ok well just make a new account"
"I need to enter an email, and make 3 different passwords"
>"its not hard, just do it"
...make new account
...Updates to the homeserver
...Walk through new account tutorial disclaimers
...sign in with account
"Hey now I cant play online, because I dont have Xbox gold..wtf"
>"hahaha"
.....
>"whats that burning smell?"
"I set your bullshit on fire and threw it out the open window..fuck everything"

[Anonymous No.3731210]

>>3729451
I grew up with NES, completely missed out on Genesis and SNES and everything up until PS1. So seeing these games now is often a new experience but what I appreciate is the simplicity. Start game, typically a basic goal, aaaaaand off you go. I don't like the difficulty sometimes. I game to relax not get assraped by Medusa heads constantly.

I prefer modern games. For example, Dishonored, STALKER, Modern Warfare, Silent Hunter, Thief (3rd one), AC 2&4 based on things that retro games can never achieve. But modern gaming has such a strict formula these days. I love retro games because it's clear back then it was more like anything goes and some designers were clearly batshit crazy.

[Anonymous No.3731302]

>Do you prefer retro games over modern ones? If so, why?

I like the feel of 8-bit nes games. When I was a kid I'm only allowed to play 1hour of nes time per day. My parents were like "Muh electricity bill!". So now I could play them as long as I want. Nes games are fun in their own way. Just the fun that I wanted. I also like the sound of nes games. Not much bass-sounding. I actually like games from Nes up to PS1

[Anonymous No.3731310]

Retro Nes games are more enjoyable at parties, especially if you have arcade cabs.
So when some random idiot dude at my party says
"holy shit dude that game is old 'an shieeeet, its 2017!"
I'll fucking put him in the dumpster.

[Anonymous No.3731337]

>>3729451
I prefer retro, sometimes play a few non-retro now and then (some DS + some early to mid 00s PC and PS2 titles). I think the only really modern games I play regularly are modded Oblivion + Skyrim and Dark Souls, even those are a few years old now.

I like the art and style of older games, the sound/music, the simpler controls, the nostalgia. No bullshit, and not 40 gigs to download.

[Anonymous No.3731339]

>>3729451
The only preference I have when it comes to video games are the ones that are actually good.

[Anonymous No.3731365]

I'm 19 right now and I only played mainstream stuff like Zelda and Mario growing up. I never got the chance to play much of any other games so I don't really have any nostalgia for the games. But last year I got the chance to go through and play lots of old games and I'm quickly falling in love with them. Thief 1/2, deus ex, hl1, morrowind, system shock 1/2, galaxian, nethack, fo1 and going into 2 right now.
There's something different between old games and the new. There's a lot less flashy visuals, less forced feel good pieces, less constraining story, less pointless choices, less cinematics, less lots of things. Nowadays, developers seem to be trying to squeeze in as much things to make people amazed as they can. Though it can be cool for a while it can get dull after it's overused; even if it's done in a different form. They'll put explosions, they'll put guns, they'll put destruction, they'll put the same thing but in different settings. When it comes to story you're set as an amazingly cool hero. If it's a sad story, someone you (or just the character you're playing) cares for dies or sometimes betrays you. Also when it comes to story they push you onto it too much. You could passively go by just playing the game but the story invested me to want to learn more about the story and the world. Now I'm just told what happens and I just move on. I know what the story is about but I never bother to learn more. And when it comes to choices, they all lead to the same thing. There's no consequence or penalty to them. You get to play the game as every single other person plays. Choose to start as a ranged and you can switch to melee at any time you want. Choose to cuss out your friend and they'll still be your closest ally until the end. Nothing feels organic or natural anymore. But who am I to say? I'm just some dumb random anon that mindlessly ranted off who's not even going to look back at any errors made. But hey, at least I had fun.

[Anonymous No.3731373]

>>3729451
I like MORE retro games than I do modern games. But the modern games I like, I like more than any retro game.

That make sense?

[Anonymous No.3731378]

>>3729827
>unfinished, bugged to hell
plenty of retro games as well
>generic, derivative games, no incentive to try new ideas
Thats because at the time there was nothing BUT new ideas, there's already been so many videogames it's getting much more difficult to create fun lasting ideas that haven't already been produced, don't fix whats not broken type thing
>games that shouldn't take themselves seriously do, those that should, don't
That goes for retro games as well
>unsavory business practices
this i will agree on
>day 1 dlc
>passes
>fragmented sale of the game content overall
There will be another disruptive business model again in the future.
>unironical gamer culture (the most cringe worthy off all being the current pc gamer hardware trend)

This i fully 100% agree with, watching pro gamers is the most painfully cringey thing in the world, it makes me grind my teeth and seethe.

[Anonymous No.3731409]

>>3731373
I am in your boat.
It means, at least for me, that you recognize that technical advancements should and can improve the gaming experience.
But the industry shifted its focus on marketing and waifus, so more then often today we are stuck with subpar AAA games with mandatory online multiplayer and tacked on single player.

I really liked Furi this year

[Anonymous No.3731591]

>>3730124
>No it gets to be AAA when someone throws a huge amount of memory at it. That's it. Seriously, it just means "megabyte ROM" and only a fool would think that you can make something good by throwing tons of memory at it.

[Anonymous No.3731597]

>>3730993
Of course it can, but many arcade games were also designed with memorization in mind and "gotcha" moments that kill the player if they don't know it's coming. Sure it's plenty possible to 1CC Gradius, but it's nearly impossible to 1CC it on your first try. Getting skilled at any arcade game with even decent difficulty got expensive real fast.

At least with a modern mobile game today I could play it for a good long while and never spend a dime, let alone a quarter. Then if the game is good enough and I want to support it (as I like to do with games I enjoy) I can then choose to pay for either convenience, more play time, graphical tchotchkes or whatever.

[Anonymous No.3731659]

>>3729459
>Emphasize story over fun
>Half life
>System shock 1&2
>"Not retro" but Deus Ex
>FF series
>Basically any retro rpg
Really buddy?
I can cherry pick too.
Why not Google "fun games"?
Arcade style class/team based shooters are fun as fuck, and no story
Many single player games with little or negligible story
Hell of you want 0 story, then play a sim game, like flight sim
>>3729479
>What would I play?
>How do I know what's good?
You know how in the 90s game magazines told you about games before you bought them? Now you can do this on youtube. You can watch reviews and game mechanics analysis from anyone from a common guy who likes games to a game developer or someone who just knows alot of game design theory. (Eg. Extra credits or superbunnyhop) and watch 30+ minute in depth reviews of JUST the gameplay and it's mechanics. Stories are a glance and that's it.
Alternatively just look up gameplays (try long play, gameplays usually have cucks yelling over the game, long plays are someone who has played the game 100 times and knows everything about playing the game)
You can read forum posts about people's opinions about the game and what they like and didn't. You're literally putting a mental block. You and the other guy I'm replying to. I don't even have a modern console cause where I live theyre expensive as hel, but I spend atleast a few hours on youtube looking up what games I would like if I had one and thanks to resources like I mentioned, I end up knowing more about the game without even playing it than people who have played the game a few times over.

[Anonymous No.3731681]

>>3731659
The people who complain most about modern games on /vr/ don't actually play them which is why everything they say sounds to bizarre. There are tons of non story-heavy modern games.

But then they're also the ones who complain that they're not being spoonfed what to play. All they know is Cowadoody and Candy Crush because they never bother to look further. Actually exploring the vast number of games being made every year seems like a chore to them.

Because spoiler, they're not really gamers. They're nostalgia junkies and they yearn for the time they were children and playing Sonic brought them happiness. They think because modern games don't do this for them that modern games must now suck. But the problem isn't with the games, it's with them.

[Anonymous No.3731685]

>>3731681
>they're not really gamers
>muh real gay-murs

[Anonymous No.3731694]

>>3731685
>doenst play videogames because they like them
>plays videogames for nostalgia
>nostalgiafag != gamer
i play as much as i can, everything from nes & sms to modern day games (or up to where i can play). these guys are complaining and puting mental barriers over shit they dont want to try. these people dont LOOK for games they like, if these idiots cant even be bothered to find games that they like, what reason is there to call them a "gamer"?
>yeah i only play retro games because thats all i know
might have been an excuse were there no internet, but there are hundreds and hundreds of sources now where you can learn about the whole game before you even consider buying it. you can watch a whole playthough on youtube (again preferably without some manchild yelling all day) and stop after the first few levels to see if you like this game. you can read and watch video reviews and analysis, there are hundreds of sources, and these anons are ignoring them all because
>muh all i know

[Anonymous No.3731705]

>>3731685
No true Scotsman would run for president of America.

[Anonymous No.3731707]

>>3731705
lets draw the line then.
gamers: people who enjoy videogames for what they are
----------------------
not gamers: nostalgia fags

[Anonymous No.3731715]

I swear /vr/ used to be smarter than this

Preferring one over the other is no issue, but the idea that all modern games are watered down cinematic walking simulators with microtransactions is just ignorant. Every era has it's garbage and it's gens, and you're missing out on some great games by dismissing current ones even if the garbage is more prominent.

[Anonymous No.3731724]

>>3731715
>the idea that all modern games are watered down cinematic walking simulators with microtransactions is just ignorant.

Of course it is, but when people don't play modern games and only look at what gets advertised what can you expect? If my only knowledge of modern movies was seeing what gets ads on tv I would think cinema had completely gone to shit as well.

[Anonymous No.3731783]

>>3729827
its only bleak if you focus on the most mainstream of mainstream games. as the pie gets bigger, there is more room for smaller slices. the indie and mobile arenas are bursting with content. yes, most mobile games are shit. but, for chill puzzlers that you only play for a few minutes at a time, cell phone games are the way to go. as a working adult, I love that

[Anonymous No.3731795]

>>3730020
because that is the definition sold to the public. really, AAA means "sky high budget". hopefully that translates into high production values, but even that makes no implications on the quality of the gameplay. things will be babyfood smooth and easy to deal with, and the graphics and audio will be superb.

and, lets be honest, these games don't suck. they are almost never "bad games". they are usually mediocre, but the mass audience doesn't know the difference between godlike gameplay with 20 year old graphics, and lame gameplay with graphics that are indistinguishable from real life

[Anonymous No.3731801]

>>3730168
underrated post

[Anonymous No.3731807]

>>3731795
It's time we started figuring out who these "mass" people are and just enslaving them.

[Anonymous No.3731820]

>>3731082
okay... this is legit. my brother gave me his 360 and it was about two hours before I could play games on it. it wanted me to make a gamer tag, an avatar, feed it a credit card, verify my email... jesus christ. now I know why people revolted when Microsoft promised the One would be online-only.

[Anonymous No.3731838]

>>3731807
That's what you think because you're a sociopathic asshole who can't stand the thought of someone enjoying something you can't.

Grow up and learn some basic human empathy.

[Anonymous No.3731848]

there are some modern games that pull off things retro games never could, but... not sure how to say this... they are a linear progression from retro games? I am thinking of Sega games, Platinum games, and games like Dragon Age. Sega and Platinum still make arcade games. From Software, too. Games that revolve around a single mechanic, and then force the player to build up godlike skills, using that one mechanic, to accomplish Herculean tasks. think Retro games are dead? play Dark Souls, or Bayonetta.

Dragon Age Inquisition feels a lot like playing Final Fantasy 6, to me. it has that same cozy emphasis on character interaction, world building, and exploration. the graphics are artful, without becoming abstract. the characters are fantastical, but not ridiculous. the adventure is awe inspiring, without breaking into the outrageous. these are all accomplishments that many modern FF games fucking fail at. (although I have yet to play 15)

[Anonymous No.3731850]

Never thought /vr/ had such a hate boner for modern games.

I preffer retro games myself since I typically enjoy their aesthetics and stories more as they're more fantasy based which I enjoy but even still there's the occasional new game I buy.

[Anonymous No.3731852]

>>3731807
they are "enslaved". they buy AAA bullshit at an stupefying rate. now, hopefully publishers are using that money to fund quality niche games, that the rest of us will buy.

[Anonymous No.3731854]

>>3731848

I agree wholeheartedly with Bayonetta, but Souls, as much as I love it, doesn't really have deep roots in /vr/ stuff I don't think. It owes more to 6th gen stuff like Onimusha, I feel. Bayo feels like the natural progression of action games like Shinobi III or even Beat 'em Ups, but I can't really think of a direct parallel for what Souls is

[Anonymous No.3731857]

>>3731850
I am sure there are some crusty curmudgeons, in this thread. most people, I think, look at the games industry as their kid. when your kid does well, everything is happy and chill. When your kid does badly, you yell at them, or punish or discipline them, somehow. you want your kid to stop screwing up. you still love them, though.

[Anonymous No.3731858]

I just can't stand the modern games aesthetic and sound design, specially western ones. As they became more prevalent, I shunned from modern games.

In the past we had thousands of western games with awful sprites that seemed done by amateurs using Paint, as west usually can't into sprites. And now it's the same, but in 3D. We have clunky (albeit ultra high poly) models with billions of effects like normal and specular maps and they look like complete shit, that get even worse with the mess of post processing effects and bloom and all that crap.
I can't stand it. Games like Batman Arkham series may be good, but they look abominable, like something out of a Rob Liefeld fever dream mixed with Hollywood aesthetic, were everything is overdetailed and overdesigned full of folds and textures, everyone wears armor, everyone is 'roided and every woman looks like a ugly tranny. Other games like Injustice and MK are just bad, with no redeeming points. Possibly the worst offenders.
And I'm not a weeb, I don't even like anime and can't stand shit like DBZ and the endless nonsense dialogues japs write, but west just can't into graphics and character design. And can't into fighting games, a genre that I really like.
The body language, usually fault of the stupid motion-capture technique (something that shouldn't ever be used in games), is also irritating, with nigger gestures and spastic little movements that seem out of a WWE match.

Funny that japs could create a pretty western looking game like Streets of Rage or Golden Axe, but west couldn't ever create a jap-like game or even a western game as good as japs western-like games.

The sound design is the same thing.
The nigger music they call Hip Hop is not music, but a bunch of niggers talking, the generic Hollywood orchestral crap bore me to death and the generic guitar riffs are cringeworthy.
The sound effects are overwhelming and also irritating, always with sounds of little rocks rolling and falling and concrete breaking.

[Anonymous No.3731864]

>>3731681
It's not just that I'm not being spoonfed what to play. I explained that I can't pirate or afford the shit so there's no real reason to explore new things. $60 for a game is rape. I'm buying consoles and flash carts at that price. I used to buy 50 packs of Verbatim DLs to burn 360 games for that price. Fuck that. My best friend dropped $500 on steam during the sale and I just can't comprehend such a thing.

I know that the games of today cost more to make. I know that the prices keep not only the studios profitable but also the console makers. But like I already said I can get a lot more for my money elsewhere.

Nostalgia factors into it, sure. I love playing Sonic 2 even though it was the only game I had for a long time when I was growing up and I've logged countless hours in it. With a flashcart I can explore hundreds of games I've never heard of though. For just a little more than the cost of a current gen game I can have every game made for older consoles available to me. English patches for games that were never officially translated, games that are too expensive to justify buying, rom hacks, it's all available to me.

So in closing, the tl;dr of it all, even if I found newer games I like they would be too pricey for me in my current situation. I see digitally distributed content as being a bad investment too.

[Anonymous No.3731872]

>>3731864
>$60 for a game is rape.

I saved up to pay $99 bucks for PSIV when it came out. Compared to other hobbies like hunting, most sports or even collecting, gaming is still relatively cheap on a dollars per hour basis.

[Anonymous No.3731873]

>>3731858
>mfw most people use the graphics dont equal good gameplay on /vr/
>mfw these same people post shit like this about how the graphics are shit
why not play a stylized game if you dont like realistic graphics? mirrors edge is a pretty nicely stylized game, both one and catalyst (the prequel/reboot), borderlands is made to look like a cartoon or a comic book with its cell shading, so is no more heroes, there are literally hundreds of stylized graphics games out there. again, most people on here are only looking at CAWADOODIE and other super mainstream shit.

[Anonymous No.3731878]

>>3731864
i love how you ignored
>>3731659
and
>>3731694
if you have 10 fucking dollars, go onoine and start googling and watching reviews so you know what to spend your 10 dollars on

[Anonymous No.3731889]

>>3731858
>The nigger music they call Hip Hop is not music

You shut your whore mouth before someone's dick falls in it

[Anonymous No.3731893]

>>3731872
If I decided to hunt like the rest of my family I wouldn't have to pay a dime. They have the guns, property, everything, all I'd have to do is show up. I chose gaming though.

In my current situation, jobless and living on social security, I have a very small amount of disposable income left each month after taking care of my living expenses. I have managed to stretch it further than I even should and I'm good at spotting deals on things I want. I know it will be better when I have a job and a car in the near future, but at least I have my consoles and flash carts to help make living this way more tolerable in the meantime.

>>3731878
I read them. I don't think you fully understand where I'm coming from though. I already know what I want to spend my money on, and I do. I'll be playing the fun games of today when they're not so shiny and new. I tend to get consoles as they're getting older, unless I can easily pirate games for them. That alone is enough to justify the price. I know piracy/cheap indie games is a possibility on PC but I don't really care for PC gaming.

[Anonymous No.3731896]

>>3729451
Generally, modern games hold your hand and tell you where to go and what to do at all times.
Older games generally just drop you into the world and let you figure it out yourself, often hiding clues that you may miss entirely.

Both ways have their issues, but I like that older games dont treat me like a one armed retaded chimp who needs help to play.
I actually like gameplay in modern games quite a lot, but most devs seem to think that decent gameplay is all you need. So they just give you hallways and things to shoot at, and I hate that.

So over all I prefer older games.

There are exceptions all around, of course, but thats why I said "generally".

[Anonymous No.3731897]

>>3731858
>My tastes are so great why is everyone else an idiot?

Grow the fuck you big baby.

[Anonymous No.3731903]

>>3731893
>If I decided to hunt like the rest of my family I wouldn't have to pay a dime.

Okay, but if you chose any other hobby (hunting was just an example) you'd find many are very expensive compared to gaming.

But it sounds like you are in a bad position and should be spending less time thinking about gaming and more time thinking about employment and what you're going to do with your life.

When you get a decent job and are living life like an adult you'll realize the price of old games is pretty minimal compared to most things in this world.

[Anonymous No.3731905]

>>3731893
>i dont care for pc gaming
why?
in your situation it sounds like the best option. hell, modern consoles are literally PC's at this point. just buy an xbox 360/ ps3 controller and plus it into your pc or with a bluetooth adapter (ps3/4 controller only i think) wirelessly.EVERY game on pc has controller support and if you stumble onto one that doesnt, theres some easy third party programs that let you map buttons to keypresses. like wasd to the analog sticks, 1,2,3,4 for weapon changing to the dpad, m1 and m2 click to shoulder buttons. fuck, i remember i played cs:s once with a fucking snes-like controller for pc. by mapping the buttons just for fun. dpad to move, 4 buttons to look around, and shoulder to shoot/jump
ofcourse it was shit, but ive seen people play that shit with ps3 controlers just as good as mouse and keyboard

[Anonymous No.3731909]

>>3731897
I basically agree with him

I really don't like the art style of current triple A games

[Anonymous No.3731910]

>>3731896
>So they just give you hallways and things to shoot at, and I hate that.

This describes like every single Contra game, Metal Slug, And if we stop taking "shoot" literally, hundreds of 3rd and 4th gen action games

[Anonymous No.3731921]

>>3731903
Unfortunately I've already been living like an adult. Trying to live on $740 a month is pretty tough. I have to pay for rent, electricity, heat, internet, phone, water, trash pickup... Probably a few more I forgot about. It's not much fun. I like it better than living with my mom, glad I finally got out of that stereotype territory... But responsibility really sucks.

>>3731905
The initial investment in a PC makes it unfeasible for me. It seems like a gamble to me. If I buy a console I can guess how many years it's going to be useful for. I can assume what kind of resale value I will get out of it. If I bought one gaming certainly wouldn't be the first thing I have in mine for it. I would probably end up spending enough to buy a used car on it. Those kinds of crazy ideas need to wait until I find gainful employment.

[Anonymous No.3731926]

I see myself playing Pooyan, Joust or Robotron when I'm 50 or more. I don't see myself playing CoD, Uncharted or QTE flavour of the month even in the near future. You can wrongly presume it's nostalgia blindness for my part but it isn't, I didn't grew up with those specific games. But they represent what makes games "games", pure and good gameplay. Modern games tend to rely in their ebin narratives and touching stories with emotions driven through piano songs, that's the major offense to me. Good stories are timeless, but forgettable stories aren't, and to me almost every game with emphasis in story is so forgettable as most 90's movies.

[Anonymous No.3731938]

>>3731910
That's one specific kind of game and the retro ones were usually much longer and more challenging.

Really one of the main things I think that causes the preference is the size of the levels. Even very old 80s era games have larger areas to explore than a lot of new ones where they spend 800 man hours rendering every shitty wallpaper flake on one hallway

Right when 3D started to hit it's stride was probably the golden age for giant worlds to explore with the notable exception of shit like GTA, because Rockstar understands more power/memory should mean bigger games

[Anonymous No.3732031]

>>3731938
>the retro ones were usually much longer

Most of the retro ones are like 30-45min long dude, what're you on?

Difficult I'll give you for the most part, but even some lf the great /vr/ action games like Shinobi III are actually pretty easy, certainly easier than some modern action games like Ninja Gaiden.

I'm not trying to shit talk you but it really just seems like you don't care for (which is fine) and don't know much about modern games. Your complaints are limited to a select few modern games and can also all be levelled at many past games considered to be greats.

[Anonymous No.3732252]

Retro games are just less bogged down with non-game shit. They didn't have the tech to make interactive movies and such back then, so they had to focus on making games. Some games were more-story focused than others, but that was pretty much all done through text and they still needed gameplay on top of that.

[Anonymous No.3732294]

>>3731873
There's nothing realistic about Batman Arkham or Mortal Kombat. They just look like a mess full of effects.
I don't like normal mapping, I don't like depth of field, I don't like blurred images, I don't like how the cam usually shakes...

Graphics don't equal gameplay, but I can't enjoy a game if I absolutely detest everything in the screen.
Most modern games I play are stylized, but the stylized games are few and I don't like how the modern ones look. Borderlands is a mess. A meme mess.

I can't stand how modern games look and sound. It's simple.
I can't stand indie pixel shit too. Even some games regarded as good looking actually look like shit in my eyes. I hate how those arrogant self-entitled pricks write stupid pixel-art tutorials like if they were supreme masters of drawing. Of course they get everything wrong, they know shit about drawing they know shit about games.

>>3731889
This game have both good music and bad music. I can't stand nigger music.
I'm not talking about music created by black people, I'm talking about nigger "music". Jazz was created by blacks and I love it, while hip hop is a bad joke that I can't stand.
Weirdly enough, I love the Def Jam games by Aki. I mute the "music", but the games are awesome.

[Anonymous No.3732303]

>>3731938
the fuck are you talking about?
metal slug was a 40 minute game, i remember i beat contra my first playthrough with the konami code took me like not even 20 minutes.
they were as linear as can be not even a hidden area or two. even the most mainstream shitgame like cawadoody that has its focus on online multiplayer still has a 6 hour minimum campaign, with hidden secrets and easter eggs.
games like skyrim and fallout, and even non open world games like amnesia, or penumbra let you explore more than these linear 20 minute games

[Anonymous No.3732309]

>>3729814
FUCKING 3!!!!!!!!!!

[Anonymous No.3732313]

>>3732031
30 on a normal play at that. If you speed run Devil May Cry at full pelt you're looking at well over an hour. And that's a speed run

[Anonymous No.3732314]

>>3731838
Mate, I have a theory that these people are legitimately not even self aware. The kinds of people who are unable to make decisions, or use any form of common sense. The kinds of people who say "Yeah I know the machine is on fire but I don't have permission to pull the fire alarm". That shit happened at my job last year by the way.

[Anonymous No.3732321]

>>3732294

And I'm saying the hip-hop in that game is god-tier music and your taste is abysmal.

I'm not even sure you know what hip-hop is, anyways.

[Anonymous No.3732338]

>>3732321
>I'm not even sure you know what hip-hop is, anyways.
Niggers in ridiculous clothing holding the mic in a funny way talking nigger shit and doing weird hand gestures while repetitive beats and stolen music plays.

[Anonymous No.3732339]

>>3729814
>Multiplayer was more civil when the other players had to be close enough that you risked getting beat down for misbehavior.
youre only looking at cawadoody and other kiddy shit filled games. remember quake on line way back?

>Children have an instinctive need to put scratches and thumb-marks on all optical media. They will literally tap into superhuman breaking-and-entering powers like kid Gohan if they sense the presence of a disk in playable condition.
get them nintendo shit. the switch will have cartridges, or alternativley, stop being a lazy parent and teach them to take care of their shit. my dad taught me to take care of shit and even to keep the boxes of even the most simple shit and put it back in. never broke a cd, never scratched one, never did anything to a game.

>Before the age of DLC, game companies had only one chance to get it right. Now, they get to release crappy pre-alpha versions, consumers (unwisely) trust them to make it right later, and maybe they'll get around to it some day when politicians commute to work on the Flying Nimbus.
they still have only one chance to get it right. if the game isnt good, no one buys the DLC, idiot.
also what are expansion packs?
>If I wanted to support pay-to-win games, I wouldn't have quit Magic the Gathering.
name one game that is p2w that isnt free to play please.

[Anonymous No.3732340]

>>3732338

Yeah see, this is why you're retarded.

Well, one reason.

[Anonymous No.3732341]

>>3732339
>name one game that is p2w that isnt free to play please.

Not him and this is being pendantic but Ashura's Wrath, since you literally cannot get the end of the game without buying it

[Anonymous No.3732490]

>>3732341
League of legends, haven't paid a cent and i'm plat 1 which is better than 90% of the community .

[Anonymous No.3732509]

>>3732490
then how is that p2w?
im asking him to list a game this isnt p2w and not f2p, but you also just proved my point further by pointing out that there are quite a bit of f2p games that arent p2w

[Anonymous No.3732591]

Yes, i prefer old games to most modern ones.

I feel the Civilization series is the greatest example I have as to why. Pretty unpopular opinion, but I think Civ 3 and 4 is both the best Civs of the bunch. What 3 lacks in strategy (Civ 4 is better in that front), It regains in more personality, better involvement, more personalization, and a overall entertaining and replayable experience.

little shit like being able to choose the arch style you want your palace to be, and the cosmetic changes your leader goes through based on what era their in, and seeing the leader you've just destroyed all bruised and angered all does wonders for immersion; makes you feel like you're really progressing and building an empire. Stacks are fun to put together, and really makes it satisfying for me to capture a city.
Civ 4 does gameplay better, the sheer intricacies each building, unit, or tech bring about also makes for a fun, replayable experience. Sadly, it doesn't have that same charm as 3, and suffers because of it.

Civ 5 and 6 hurt to see. They moved way too far away from the world-building aspect, and now feel more shallow as a result. They're still intricate, but not in a way I particularly like. I don't like having to hold back troops after being declared war on for fear of being denounced by every other leader in 5. I don't like having to choose a tile for each and every little building in 6. I don't like having to choose separate civic and normal tech trees in 6. I don't like being able to get to Future Tech in the 1600s in 6. The only thing the 2 latest games do right is the hex-grid. Civ 5's art-deco GUI was a little nicer too, but once again I have to say 3's was more charming. Civ 5 and 6 are a bore to get through, they don't entertain me, they often limit me. Little autistic shit like having your cities automatically be named instead of a pop-up asking for the name of the city, and settlers taking part of your population (although it does make sense), grinds.

[Anonymous No.3732592]

>>3729451
I play modern games, but just the ones that emphasize gameplay the most, don't hold your hand, and still have old school stuff like health packs.

[Anonymous No.3732872]

>>3729451
The real reason is that I think we've crossed the rubicon on cool new ideas.
I'm more likely to find a novel idea of some sort - story or gameplay wise - by digging amongst old games than I am to find them in modern releases. Both for market-consolidation reasons (innovation not paying as much as it used to relatively speaking) and because I can download a huge block of old games in less time than it takes to download the updates for one current game.

It's basically novelty-seeking. Also, especially in terms of early-ish 3D (thinking Spyro here) since the technology couldn't quite support realism there's a bigger amount of comfortably coherent cartoon environments instead of attempts at verisimilitude.

[Anonymous No.3732894]

>>3732591
I feel like as time went on, they added lots of bells, whistles, and gimmicks to the civ games, but their gameplay and strategy worsened.

what's your opinion of civ 2? I think it ranks up there with 3 and 4. it's simpler, but I like how its balanced towards aggressive expansion, and it improved quite a bit on the first game.

[Anonymous No.3732980]

>>3729451
I'm 27 and in the end it turns out that I do prefer older games to new ones. I don't think that new games are made up of interesting ideas anymore. No one can really take any risks and I think the current indie scene is garbage.

[Anonymous No.3733070]

>>3732338
It's not stolen if you paid for it, dumbass.

[Anonymous No.3733501]

>>3731858

Everyone is shitting on this post, but I broadly agree with it. Far too many people confuse "complex" graphics with "beautiful" graphics. It's as if they're trying to impress people with how much detail they can put on the screen, rather than trying to make something that people get pleasure from looking at.

If I were a paranoid person, I'd say that the design decisions behind a lot of recent games have been about showcasing graphics hardware rather than actual aesthetics.

The worst thing of all is that so many games focus on detailed depictions of ugly things: ugly characters, ugly, deformed monsters, ugly, run-down cityscapes in the bad part of town. If I wanted to see stuff like that, I'd hop on a train and go to Manchester.

It's got to the point where the only modern games I like to look at are ones with a fantasy setting and a cartoonish art style. As an added bonus, some of them even have more than two colours on the screen at a time.

[Anonymous No.3733534]

They didn't have hour long cutscenes every 10 mins.

[Anonymous No.3734101]

>>3729451
Most modern games have lost the whimsy and fun seen in older games and it's mostly because of the need to be "realistic".
In pursuit of that level design has also taken a big hit in that most games are now just glorified hallways.

And while Nintendo seems to be trying to maintain that to some degree even they're losing footing due to the changing audiences.

[Anonymous No.3734182]

Older games are more abstract and leave more for the imagination of the player, so they help fill the void better.
Shit nowadays forces too much personality that is just a copycat of a copycat of a plain-dimensional character based around two tropes, that everyone draws and fantasize with because it's a woman.
Also there's no politics so that helps a bit.

[Anonymous No.3734195]

>>3734182
What's the meaning of the Cohen album and the filename?

[Anonymous No.3734204]

Can we stop saying graphics don't matter for games for just a second?

[Anonymous No.3734206]

>>3734195
this is not the board for this but wtvr i wanted to post that, such as some people post anime accompanying their posts

[Anonymous No.3734219]

>>3734204
Graphics don't matter though, It's the content of the game that does. Graphics should just be the icing on the cake and not the cake itself.

Also can you use an indie game at least?

[Anonymous No.3734223]

>>3734219
The right was an indie game. And it beats every indie game save for japanese visual novels.

[Anonymous No.3734225]

>>3734223
I'm talking about the left side.
Even NES Mario (even though that's Mario Maker) is a far cry from what most indie devs think retro is.

[Anonymous No.3734227]

>>3734219
>Graphics don't matter though,
If Earthworm Jim looked like shit, no one would remember it. Graphics and art can save a mediocre game.

[Anonymous No.3734229]

I like retro and all, but there's going back and then there's going TOO far back. I for one don't miss the Atari graphics. I'm happy nes and then snes came along to refine the resolution and color depth of later games. I don't think any of us want to go back to a time of 256 or less colors.

[Anonymous No.3734230]

>>3734206
Wow thanks for pointing that out. (despite being irrelevant to the board) I had never seen this Ween album

[Anonymous No.3734239]

>>3734227
There's a huge difference between a good looking game and a good game anon. Ultimately graphics can't save the game if the gameplay isn't on point.

[Anonymous No.3734251]

>>3734239
Good graphics also help make a game with mechanics that you've already done over and over.

[Anonymous No.3734285]

>>3734251
Which is kind of what I mean by icing on the cake.

[Anonymous No.3734947]

>>3734229
Pool of Radiance (and the rest of the goldbox games) has excellent tactical DnD combat.

This EGA game is about the farthest back WRPG fans go in terms of gameplay over graphics (hardcore wizardry fans disagree).