Games that may or may not be retro thread

[Anonymous No.4312695]

Is Tekken Tag Tournament 1 retro if it's arcade release was in 1999, but the console port was in 2000 for the PS2, a non /vr/ console? Post games you aren't quite sure about if they're retro or not.

[Anonymous No.4312702]

>>4312695
Ported games are all fine, as long as they originated on a retro console.
I doubt anybody would object to a discussion about The Silver Case, despite it finally being localized this gen.

[Anonymous No.4312703]

>>4312695
Of course it is. Arcade game is made for pre 1999 hardware. Ps2 is a port, no different than kof97.

[Anonymous No.4312759]

The Namco System 22 hardware is a glorified Playstation, it's definitely retro.

I remember being pissed off at the time it got ported to the PS2 instead of the PS1 since it didn't look any different from Tekken 3 in the arcade. Probably sold a lot of consoles though.

[Anonymous No.4312830]

Are PC Games released in the early years of the 2000's /vr/ if
1)They are made in a pre-2000 engine like Unreal or/thus
2)Are compatible with a pre-2000 OS like Windows 98 for example or pre-2000 hardware like the 3DFX Voodoo GPUs or the Pentiums
?

I mean just look when you search PC games from the year 2000 on Google, other than Dude Sex nobody is going to discuss the other games on /v/ and those games are compatible with much older hardware, Thief II:The Metal Age for example works on a Pentium II with Windows 95.

[Anonymous No.4312857]

>>4312695
90s arcade hardware is allowed on /vr/.

[Anonymous No.4312883]

>>4312830
The rules go by hardware, so in theory anything that could be run on a system built with December 1999 parts is fair fame according to the rules.

So deffinitely anything that runs in some form of Windows9x is "retro" as the rules go here. A mid 2000's pc game is no different from a mid 2000's Dreamcast game. Or a 2017 Genesis game for that matter.

[Anonymous No.4312895]

I would consider serious sam the first and second encounter retro because it technically runs on tech from 1999. Also looks like a 1998 game.

Hell any Windows 9x game before 2002 would be ok because they still looked blocky

[Anonymous No.4312910]

I guess we can talk about the cancelled Dreamcast port of Max Payne.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGdEgi1Ii50

[Anonymous No.4313465]

>>4312695
You know this whole stupid debate and what not would have been easily been resolved if you fuckheads (that also means you mods) changed the name to V20 (20th century videogames)

[Anonymous No.4313607]

>>4313465
That would also need a change to the rules though.

[Anonymous No.4313683]

>>4312830
I have been arguing that many of those games are not retro and should be banned from this board for months.

[Anonymous No.4313768]

>>4313683
Yeah because you don't understand how the rules work. It's really something.

[Anonymous No.4314392]

>>4312830
The rules are pretty bullshit on that. Either they should go by software release date or hardware age, not cherrypicking one for consoles and the other for computers.

[Anonymous No.4314395]

One thing I was never really sure about is whether or not the Wonderswan Color is considered /vr/. The Wonderswan came out in 1999, but the Color came out in 2000. However, there are a lot of games made for the Color that still work on the original WS, so it's kind of a gray area.

It's like if the GBC came out in 2000 instead of 1998. Would it still get in on a technicality, or no?

[Anonymous No.4314402]

FIFA 06 for the PSX: retro
Dood Sex: not retro

[Anonymous No.4314405]

>>4314392
They go for hardware age for everything, it's really not confusing.

[Anonymous No.4314432]

>>4314405
No, PC games are exempted from the hardware age rule because PC has been around since the '80s so we could technically discuss brand new PC games here since the platform is retro. Hence why the sticky says PC GAMES and arcade GAMES, not hardware.

[Anonymous No.4314440]

>>4314432
You're wrong, the rules make so such distinction. Pc hardware is no different from console, arcade ir pinball hardware. It's very, very simple.

[Anonymous No.4314449]

>>4314440
No I'm right, threads about PC games released after 1999 often get deleted because they go by published date, not their system requirements.

[Anonymous No.4314458]

>>4314395
WSC discussion should be fine. GBC got games until 2002, and none of them are banned here. There's not even a pre-2000 rule for /vr/.

[Anonymous No.4314461]

>>4314402
>FIFA 06 for the PSX: retro

But anon, the PSX is a gimped PS2 that came out in 2003 which makes it not retro.

[Anonymous No.4314463]

>>4314395
WSC discussion should be fine. GBC got games until 2002, and none of them are banned here.

[Anonymous No.4314482]

>>4314463
The reason I was wondering is because it goes by the hardware release date, not the software. Because the WSC came out after the cutoff date, it's technically "not retro" according to the board rules.

[Anonymous No.4314485]

Bump the date back to 1997, so we can keep all sixth gen shitters off my board.

[Anonymous No.4314524]

>>4314482
I think they're similar enough hardware-wise that only the if-you-allow-that-then-allow-all-6th-gen whiners would have a problem with it. I honestly don't think WSC, NGPC or even the GBC can be considered distinct consoles in their own right as much as minor upgrades to or revisions of their "predecessors".

Is there a list of WSC games that don't run on the WS? Is it even confirmed if there are any? AFAIK there are no NGPC games that don't work on the NGP.

[Anonymous No.4314574]

>>4314524
>AFAIK there are no NGPC games that don't work on the NGP.

There's 34 NGPC games that aren't NGP compatible. Pic related it's a screenshot from my excel collection sheet. WSC is even worse with compatibility. I know none of the Final Fantasy or later Digimon games work. WSC was a much bigger leap than NGPC.

[Anonymous No.4314620]

>>4314449
The rules are very clear and easy to understand, they don't make that distinction in any way. We have many normal threads.

[Anonymous No.4314704]

>>4314432
Let's actually look at what the rules say and break it down.

>This board is for the discussion of classic, or "retro" games.
Here it explains what the board's purpose is.

>Retro gaming means
Now it's going to lay out what it considers "retro" games

>consoles, computer games, arcade games (including pinball) and any other forms of video games

Pretty straight forward, these are the broad categories of games. But from when? Here we go.

>on platforms launched in 1999 and earlier.

On platforms launched in 1999 and earlier is also simple to understand. The first part of the sentence laid out what those are.

Definition of platform for anyone still confused, because this is English which is a complex language with many uses for various words. It fits into the fifth definition. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/platform

Alternately, definition 1.6 from OED
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/platform

I honestly don't get why this is confusing to people, but it shouldn't be. PCs are given no special distinction different from consoles, arcade or pinball. They all follow the same simple rule.

[Anonymous No.4314784]

>>4313607
No it doesn't Retro is a relative word. If this board would only concentrate on everything from the 20th century (console and computer wise) it would help, and to satiate whiners, you could let 21th century (commercialy released) games that came on consoles of the 20th century be allowed.

[Anonymous No.4314795]

>>4314784
Retro as it's defined doesn't refer to most if the games we play here. They're old, not retro. Shovel Knight is what a "retro" game actually is.

I agree this place should be for old games, but that's not what the board rules describe.

[Anonymous No.4314812]

>>4312695
The arcade version is retro and the PS2 port is not. IT'S NOT THAT EFFIN HARD MORON!

[Anonymous No.4314829]

>>4314704
Consoles are the only platforms that get away with the 1999 hardware loophole, everything else goes by game release date. Notice how it says consoles and not console games like it does for arcade and PC. The rules need to either go by hardware or software, not both. I think the rule needs to go by software because games released in the current millennium, regardless of platform, are too young to be considered vintage yet.

[Anonymous No.4314831]

>>4314704
But you can't simultaneously argue that if I start a thread about, say, VtmB, that it is

a) not a computer game
b) but runs on win98, which is a "platform"

Operating systems are not considered platforms here because we already mentioned computer gaming BEFORE we mentioned the platform. The word "other" being the operative word in that particular sentence.

When it says platforms it's referring to shit like Tiger Electronics or tamagotchis or whatever. It's not referring to operating systems or arcade boards - we already covered arcade games and computer games, specifically, before we started trying to define "other" forms of games.

[Anonymous No.4314856]

>>4314392
It works for consoles because games released on a Genesis in 2017 still have to go by the same hardware constraints that the console had in 89. The issue with PC is you could argue something like Doom 3 is retro because they can be "ran" on hardware in 99 even though no one in their right mind would ever play it that way.

[Anonymous No.4314868]

>>4314856
What makes games released in current year on 30 year old consoles more retro than low-spec PC games???

Shit makes no sense.

[Anonymous No.4314872]

>>4314829
No they aren't and it's not a loophole. The rules are very simple, there us no reason to misinterpret them as you're doing.

[Anonymous No.4314878]

>>4314829
It makes that distinction because pcs can do more than just game. It changes nothing else.

[Anonymous No.4314882]

>>4314704
>Retro gaming means consoles, computer games, arcade games (including pinball) and any other forms of video games on platforms launched in 1999 and earlier.

Take out the clutter of other systemsand you see how simple and straight forward it is.

>Retro gaming means computer games on platforms launched in 1999 and earlier.

This is fundamentally no different. Absolutely nothing in what's written indicates that PC games follow any different rule or logic from console games. No one who is literate in English can reasonably claim otherwise.

[Anonymous No.4314884]

>>4314872
Well, you're wrong. The mods deleted a Deus Ex thread a few weeks back because it is a post-1999 game, thus not retro. You are literally pulling the "old system requirements make a PC game retro" out of your ass. But go ahead, try to make a thread about a 20XX PC game and see how long it lasts.

[Anonymous No.4314894]

undertale is retro! pc is a retro platform you guys!!!

fuck off reddit newfags, that's not how it works

[Anonymous No.4314895]

>>4314884
>You are literally pulling the "old system requirements make a PC game retro" out of your ass.

Because that's what the rules explicitly say. This isn't complex English. It shouldn't be hard for anyone.

[Anonymous No.4314896]

>>4314894
On a PC platform launched before 1999. Please stop pretending to be stupid.

If someone ports it to Windows 95 it would be, but that's no different from the Genesis port of Cave Story.

[Anonymous No.4314903]

>>4314895
You're the one failing to grasp what the rules mean. I've already tried explaining it and you still stubbornly stick to your definition, at this point I must assume you're a troll and are only keeping this up for the (You)'s, good day.

[Anonymous No.4314909]

>>4314896
>If someone ports it to Windows 95 it would be, but that's no different from the Genesis port of Cave Story.
No it wouldn't. Go try to make a Halo thread (ported to Windows 98) right now and see for yourself, moron.

[Anonymous No.4314910]

>>4314903
I am right though. They make no distinction you are claiming they do. It's three very simple sentences.

There is no way of reading it with proper understanding if English and not getting that.

I don't even like the rules. I think they SHOULD go by the date of the game, but according to the rules they very clearly do not.

[Anonymous No.4314914]

>>4314909
According to the letter or the rules it shouldn't be.

[Anonymous No.4314929]

>>4314882
>Take out the clutter of other

Ah, no, see that word DRASTICALLY alters the meaning of the sentence. It is there to PREVENT you from contracting the sentence to what you did there. You can't do that.

[Anonymous No.4314947]

>>4314929
No it doesn't. In any way. Look at the grammar, it's not hard.

[Anonymous No.4315169]

The only non retro games I'd like to discuss here are Ridge Racer V and PSP ones

[Anonymous No.4315179]

>>4314947
It signifies that computer games and "platforms" are mutually exclusive. That's a big fucking difference.

[Anonymous No.4315316]

>ITT: Fuck the rules, let's be /v/!

[Anonymous No.4315498]

>>4315179
It absolutely does no such thing.

[Anonymous No.4315668]

>>/vr/thread/4314941

That settles it. Post-1999 PC games are not retro, this includes Deux Ex and Diablo 2, so remember to report threads about them.

[Anonymous No.4315674]

>>4315668
They should re-write the rules then, because it's clearly not what they say. I know 4chan us no longer run by native English speakers but it's a little ridiculous.

[Anonymous No.4315927]

>>4312702
I was so hyped for this game prior to localization. Despite the stylish layout and great OST, the story is a convoluted mess and borderline incoherent.

[Anonymous No.4315928]

>>4314868
It makes perfect sense stop playing dumb.

[Anonymous No.4315930]

>>4315674
It's very clear if you're not fucking retarded.

[Anonymous No.4315936]

>>4315668
Then what about all the RCT2 threads?

[Anonymous No.4316013]

only directx 7.0 was available in 1999, that should cut out a lot of post 1999 games

[Anonymous No.4316030]

I think we should just have a cut-off year for every video game regardless of platform. It's stupid that according to the rules, you can talk about a console port of game released in 2002, but not the original PC game.

[Anonymous No.4316535]

>>4315674
I love how you've clearly lost this argument, with proof provided of your idiocy, with multiple English speakers telling you you're reading it wrong, and your last gasp at an argument is to blame the sticky written years ago of being written by ESLs.

[Anonymous No.4316643]

>>4316535
The sentence is very clear. It's impossible to read it the way you are saying in proper English. That's why I broke down and explained the structure of the sentence. >>4314704 Using proper English grammar, that is what the sentence means. It cannot properly be interpreted another way.

Also important point, this isn't "my fight" in that I don't really care about Deus Ex or whatever being allowed or not. I just want the rules to be clarified or changed. I think they're already bad and should go by software release, not system release. This board is for old games.

If PC games are an exception and cut off at 1999, I'm fine and cool with that. My issue is that is very clearly not what the rules as written say. That they are this confusing to so many people is part of the problem.

[Anonymous No.4316672]

I remember this thing getting a free pass here for some reason.

[Anonymous No.4316684]

>>4312759
The arcade version of TTT was based on T3 and looked very polygonal, but the PS2 version was was a remake upgrade and it had a very nice CG sheen to it that looks quite close to the CG intro on a CRT, considering it was an early CD based PS2 title.

[Anonymous No.4317696]

>>4312695
Yes, the best fighting game ever made is retro.

[Anonymous No.4317752]

>>4316643
You're just like that other anon who thinks that the word "other" is superfluous in that sentence and ignore it when you cannot do that.

You're gonna be obstinate and try to interpret it wrong but it was abundantly clear for years to everyone here and no amount of caterwauling about how everyone else is wrong changes the fact that it's clearly you who are wrong. Proof was provided, English lessons were provided, what is left that will show you you're not right and never were? That was a serious question.

[Anonymous No.4317838]

>>4317752
>Proof was provided
Never anywhere.
If you can prove using actual English grammar that it means something different, then try. You can't. It's clear what it means.

[Anonymous No.4317849]

>>4317752
And by proof, I mean actually analyze the sentence structure as I did using English grammar to show how it says PC gamess do not follow the same platform rule as console and arcade games.

This does not mean a screenshot of the sentence with some red circles. All that does is illustrate you don't understand what you're talking about. It's appalling that literacy these days is seriously this bad.

[Anonymous No.4317852]

>>4317838
I already did. Multiple times. At least one other anon also showed you how your English was flawed.

Yet another anon literally started a Halo thread to prove it would get deleted and it was, using your exact line of reasoning to justify its existence.

You were proven wrong in theory and in practice and you have offered nothing in the face of that proof but a refusal to accept it as valid proof, and even now will not say what goalposts we need to score on to actually shut you up even when asked directly.

You're hopeless. And you're in a slim minority of posters who willfully delude themselves as to what the rules here are so you may as well go back to lurking or at least refrain from offering your views as to what is allowed here because you're not in sync with the rest of us.

[Anonymous No.4317864]

>>4317852
>I already did. Multiple times.
I only ever saw people post the text or an image with circles and insist that made them right.

People making threads and then reporting them to get mods who are ESL students to delete them doesn't count towards much. Grammar is clear.

[Anonymous No.4318702]

sixth gen is retro. update the fuckin sticky already

[Anonymous No.4319712]

I think the main grey area for PC games (2000-2002 games that run well in win98 environment & hardware) should remain unresolved.

In a week's span you might get ~2 threads by people playing PC games fitting this description. The threads massively annoy certain people here, and they do a terrific job keeping the threads bumped when they sperg out.

[Anonymous No.4319745]

>>4319712
The problem is that they also report them as spam which confuses the mods who then delete them. It's just the same old shitty consoles vs PCs flamewar, but now based on a twist about them following different rules.

It's sad but it's the state the board is stuck in with all the trolls we have now.

[Anonymous No.4319765]

>>4319745
Then the rules need to be re-clarified to allow PC games that run on '90s hardware. Too bad Hiro doesn't give a shit about this board and won't do such a thing, though.

[Anonymous No.4319769]

>>4319765
20XX PC games*

[Anonymous No.4319946]

>>4319765
The rules actually are clear, but people who hate PC games intentionally misinterpret them and most of the mods now aren't native English speakers. But you're right that nothing is ever happening. The feedback page has been dead for years and it's clearer with every day that the people in charge here now really don't give a shit.