What makes retro gaming intrinsically better? Also, are there any good "modern" games?

[Anonymous No.4459430]

[Anonymous No.4459434]

>>4459430
90% of retro games are shit. the ones that are good are good because they have nice gameplay, good soundtracks, AND nice visuals,

>modern games
there are tons but please fuck off to >>>/v/

[Anonymous No.4459436]

1) Nostalgia
2) Yes.

[Anonymous No.4459437]

>>4459430
>are there any good "modern" games?
HAHAHA

NO

[Anonymous No.4459438]

>>4459430
Nostalgia, replayability, length, no dlc & drm, challenge, aesthetics/design.

Of course there's good modern games, what a dumb question.

[Anonymous No.4459440]

>>4459434
>>modern games
>there are tons but please fuck off to >>>/v/

Point taken. It just seems like /vr hates a lot of modern games for no reason other than the game is modern.

[Anonymous No.4459441]

>>4459440
?????
you're not even supposed to be discussing modern games here

[Anonymous No.4459452]

>>4459441
This rubbish again. There is no such rule. You're not supposed to post topics about modern games, you can discuss whatever the toss you want inside a thread. Spazzing out over the mere mention of non-retro stuff is truly bizarre.

[Anonymous No.4459456]

>>4459452
Tell our janitors that.

[Anonymous No.4459457]

>>4459452
Overton-Window moving bullshit tbf

[babbage's gramps !RATGzMALLY No.4459458]

I think a lot of the backlash against modern games is that a lot of the "biggest" ones are shameless samey cash grabs and a lot of the "acclaimed" ones are hollow pandering.

We can see these sort of things in the retro period too, like licensed games and most FMV games but the thing about hindsight is that from our current perspective we can pretty clearly see what was good and what wasn't although there's a persistent current trend to try to shit on even the classics

[Anonymous No.4459461]

>>4459456
it's one janitor. don't worry, his ban requests are rejected

[Anonymous No.4459467]

>>4459461
I wish. I get banned every couple of weeks.

[Anonymous No.4459469]

>>4459467
that's your fault then

[Anonymous No.4459471]

>>4459436
/thread

[Anonymous No.4459476]

>>4459456
Sorry, it was just a question.

Though it is a legitimate question, seeing the near-unanimous hate towards non-retro games. That being said next time I just won't ask, or put up a thread about it.

I'll take a ban if need be, and learn from it.

[Anonymous No.4459478]

>>4459476
>near-unanimous
where, specifically? aren't there like 7 posts ITT defending modern vidya?

[Anonymous No.4459479]

Why is it that every thread that doesn't use the comment box is guaranteed to be garbage? It's not just one person making all these threads, is it?

[Anonymous No.4459482]

>>4459479
it's a newfriend

[Anonymous No.4459491]

>>4459476
You're not going to get banned for a posting a thread that is 50% on topic for the board. Some peoplpe are just dragging out the nonretro boogeyman. There is no harm in discussion of other things. Most modern vidya sucks shit though.

[Anonymous No.4459492]

>>4459430
>What makes retro gaming intrinsically better?
They're not. I quite enjoy playing retro games, but that's largely because of the nostalgia they make me feel. Some famous franchises like Zelda and Final Fantasy have gone to shit though in the modern era, so when you go back and play the retro entries in those series it can make you think that retro games in general were better.

>Also, are there any good "modern" games?
Many. This year alone I played Persona 5, Danganronpa V3, Puyo Tetris, Shantae: Half Genie Hero, Cuphead, Mario Odyssey, and Project Diva Future Tone. Maybe a couple others I'm forgetting. All modern and all good.

[Anonymous No.4459493]

>>4459482
>it's a newfriend

Yes, this is true. Apologies for not lurking more. :(
I'll improve post quality in the future.

[Anonymous No.4459506]

90% of everything is shit, non-retro and retro games included. Retro games aren't intrinsically better, just what (presumably) everyone on this board prefers because nostalgia and general design philosophies that aren't as prevalent these days. Not to mention market changes, and shifts in what genres are most popular. Shmups for example are basically dead now, which sucks.

[Anonymous No.4459524]

>>4459430
>intrinsically better
Nothing. Old games just had a different design philosophy than modern games. I myself prefer these designs but I'm not a jaded queer who blindly says anything not retro is shit. There are plenty of barely non retro (2000 - 2007) games that are very good, and /vr/'s arbitrary rules have no say in quality.

[Anonymous No.4459538]

>>4459430

Retro developers had more passion and skill, and weren't so worried and focused on making a shitload of money. They could get away with being artistic and experimental and focused on making a fun experience. Not only that, but back then people didn't whine about games being too hard, players just bucked up and beat their games, this made gameplay always more fun and much better designed since they didn't have to focus so hard on everything being soft and accessible.

>Are there any good "Modern" games

Well, we aren't allowed to talk about the PS2 generation but I really think gaming peaked in the early 2000s. It's mostly been bad since CoD and Halo turned gaming into a multi-billion industry.

There are some great modern japanese games every now and again. Fighting games are still great, Dark Souls revitalized many "retro" design sensibilities, Jrpgs are starting to make a comeback, and indie games are getting better and better and more ambitious. However, big Western game devs are absolutely terrible and just don't "get it" anymore.

[Anonymous No.4459541]

>>4459430
Nothing, really (any advantages are probably offset by liabilities). The average retro game isn't very different from modern games besides graphics and the standards they were held up to at the time.

While retro gaming has its flaws (lack of patches to fix game-breaking bugs that somehow slip by QA, high standard for production value, etc. I'm not an expert, don't quote me on this.), modern gaming has it's own issues (the rise of microtransactions, incomplete/buggy games, often both, lazy companies letting floods of shit permeate their online stores).

So, yes, there are good modern games. You just have to look for them.

[Anonymous No.4459553]

>>4459430
1. A mixture of simplicity and fun.
2. Uhh... Trese Brothers are actually pretty good at making games that harken back to retro. ToME 4 too I guess.

[Anonymous No.4459567]

Yeah,
Games that heavily lean on mechanics perfected in Retro titles
Nu-PREY, for example, takes concepts from Deus Ex and System Shock and runs with them.

Sonic Mania is literally a Sonic game with modern QoL features

Hollow Knight and Cuphead are retro in everything but visuals. Their gameplay takes a page straight out of retro game deaign

[Anonymous No.4459648]

>>4459458
Gramps don’t know why other anons hate you it seems like you are always on topic and polite and usually your post are informative

[Anonymous No.4459653]

>>4459492
>like Zelda
Did you not like BotW anon?

[babbage's gramps !RATGzMALLY No.4459661]

>>4459648
Apparently that's not what /vr/ is about anymore.

[Anonymous No.4459702]

>>4459661
Well I just want you to know you are appreciated bud

[babbage's gramps !RATGzMALLY No.4459705]

>>4459702
Well great! I appreciate you too, Anon. Most likely you're exactly the type of person I post for.

[Anonymous No.4459731]

>>4459661
Consider yourself double-appreciated :)

[Anonymous No.4459778]

They are better because they've been filtered through time and the good stuff rises to the top. It's easier to find good retro as it's already been vetted by others.

modern good: shovel knight, river city ransom: underground, cogmind, haque, stardew valley, stephen's sausage roll, cursed castillia, pixeljunk shooter, hyper light drifter and especially vagante.

[Anonymous No.4459848]

>>4459430
Gameplay. Everything else is secondary. Tetris is still played today and it will be played for ages. Because its base - its gameplay is absurdly simple, and funat the same time.

Retro games are good because their gameplay is more "pure" - they were made during the time where the genres were being codified and taking form. Developers rarely tried to mix together everything that is popular into a single homogenous (and boring) pot of gameplay, instead trying to find the perfect formula for the selected genre.

Modern game can be good too. I'd say even more - AAA games can be good, albeit rarely. The problem is, that people forget that there still exist developers outside of AAA industry, and the new platforms allow them to make games they want and are passionate about. Sure there are cashgrabbers, but they existed in the old times as well.

The ratio of good/bad games is decreasing, but since the overall ammount of games released increases, ammount of great games being released also increases steadily. The problem is finding worthy gems amids the mounds of garbage

Good "Modern" games I personally played recently:New Doom is a good, even if they botched the Doom formula and made a spiritual successor to Painkiller instead
Witcher 3 is unironically great,despite all its flaws.
Divinity: Original Sin is genuinely good
New Prey is a fine reimagining of System Shock - people who try to judge it on FPS merits are retards
A Hat in Time is a good, even if derivative platformer
A lot of 2D platformers and Metroid-likes you can enjoy if you dismiss the "ew, indieshit" mentality - like Hollow Knight, Axiom Verge, Ori, Rabi-Ribi and others
There are sims of all shapes and sizes for many sports and tycoons, many of them are great
No good space sims though, but successor to Descent is in the works and it is looking good
Also successor to Ultima Underworld is looking amazing

Anyway,even in modern times if you actually bother to look, you will find a lot of good stuff

[Anonymous No.4459849]

>>4459430
>are there any good "modern" games?
Tried to avoid direct sequels to retro games.

>Guitar Hero
>Monster Hunter
>Dark Souls
>Shadow of the Colossus
>Bioshock
>F.E.A.R.
>Burnout
>Portal
>Ace Attorney Series
>9 Hours 9 Persons 9 Doors
>Undertale
>Super Meat Boy

[Anonymous No.4460423]

>>4459648
The devil you know is the better than the devil you don't.
Babbage has been here a while. I don't like namefags, but I hate the recent direction this site is going in. The namefags that have been here a while actual give me a sense of consistency.
As far as namefags go, Baggage is alright. Kinda like Boco on /v/

[Anonymous No.4460483]

>>4459648
Not to mention that he's also a true American patriot.

[Anonymous No.4460578]

I'd would say that it wasn't only the games, but that game culture back in those days had a lot of charm and sense of humor. Also, people back then wasn't so cinycal and the let themselves be surprised when a game was really awesome.

I lived that era and you could sense that playful feeling everywhere: the crazy almost punkish english magazines, the cover art, the manuals, the commercials, companies like Konami laughing at themselves with games like Parodius or Twin Bee, etc.
Back then there were crazy things like videogame companies having music bands of their own, and also took pride on having mascots, unlike today, when ist's seen as something cheesy, with the exception of Nintendo.

[Anonymous No.4460586]

>>4459430
It's not. Saying retro is intrinsically better is just as brainless as saying modern is intrinsically better.

[Anonymous No.4460603]

>>4459430
>are there any good "modern" games

Why can't /vr/ ever just talk about old video games? Why are you so eternally triggered that there's a topic devoted to whining and crying about big mean modern games?

Qhy is it that you have so little interesting to say about classic games that you need to spend so much if your life bitching?

[Anonymous No.4460621]

>>4459848
>people who try to judge it on FPS merits are retards

people judge it because they were promised space bounty hunter game

[Anonymous No.4460639]

>>4459567
>>4459848
>>4459849
>"good" games
>all this obnoxious westshit
Please, fuck off.

[Anonymous No.4460640]

>>4459430
>Also, are there any good "modern" games?
Go to Steam and sort by User Reviews.

[Anonymous No.4460646]

>>4459567
>Hollow Knight and Cuphead are retro in everything but visuals. Their gameplay takes a page straight out of retro game deaign
Like hell they do. Cuphead has some arcade inspirations but that's only in the first third, and you wont find an old game anywhere near Hollow Knight.

[Anonymous No.4460647]

>>4460640
But PC gamers always had a remarkable shit taste, now with Steam it's even worse.

[Anonymous No.4460657]

>>4460639
lol

>>4460647
>taste

[Anonymous No.4460706]

>>4460647
Japanese consoles indisputably owned video games during the 80s and most of the 90s, but you're lying to yourself if you can't admit that Western PC developers made all the good shit in the 2000s. Meanwhile, the japs are ruining their classic franchises and making casual shit.

[Anonymous No.4460708]

>>4459430
>What makes retro gaming intrinsically better?
Nothing.

You might generally prefer older games because you prefer an older paradigm of video game development, an artstyle that was more common, hipster reasons or nostalgia.

[Anonymous No.4460709]

>>4459430
In /vr/ times devs were less afraid of maing pure games. Now they feel the need to make them something else (movies, books, skinner boxes, a cobination of the above...) or combine them with other mediums, mostly due to targeting a wider demographic

[Anonymous No.4460713]

>>4460706
>but you're lying to yourself if you can't admit
Or maybe I just don't eat shit.

>PC developers made all the good shit in the 2000s
Name 3 actual video games, not some imbecillic interactive passtime, by which I mean "games" with save anywhere you want feature.

[Anonymous No.4460726]

>>4460713
No matter how he answers you will just start flooding your post with >s which will boil down to "UMMMM I DONT LIKE THAT GAME SO IT DOESNT COUNT".

[Anonymous No.4460729]

>>4459430
An assclown on youtube saying so. What is a "modern" game?

[Anonymous No.4460732]

>>4460729
oh you mean Bob Cornhole?

[Anonymous No.4460739]

>>4460639
Weeaboos must be purged

[Anonymous No.4460741]

>>4460729
Any game made on or after January 1, 2000. Unless it is on the Playstation, N64, or Dreamcast, then it could be made whenever. Other than these exceptions, these games SUCK.

[Anonymous No.4460756]

Retro games aren't better, it's the same as it always was, for every good game, there's at least 10 shitty ones. The only reason the good to shit ratio seems off in modern day is because indie devs are allowed to publish, but those are to be ignored.

[Anonymous No.4460758]

>>4460739
get off my board neofag

[Anonymous No.4460759]

>>4459430
>are there any good "modern" games?
Atlus and NIS are keeping it real. Some doujin games are cool too.
Just like before 2000, Japanese niche titles are good.

[Anonymous No.4460765]

If a game is still good after twenty years then it's definitely an amazing game

Like Mega Man 3 or Castlevania

Sometimes I wonder which ones of those AAA modern games released these days we'll be able to pick up and play 20 years from now without throwing up

[Anonymous No.4460769]

>>4460709
>afraid

lol

[Anonymous No.4460784]

>>4459430
So, I can tell you're new to this itself, so I'll let the stupid in these 2 questions slide for now and just answer them.
There is nothing about retro games that is 'intrinsically better' as you put it. There are a shit ton of really bad retro games, just like there are currently tons of bad games. It's just easier to look back and pick out all the good stuff on a system once it's time is over. It's easier to look back at these systems and say that they had amazing libraries, but at the time, we all looked at them and said "Man, half the games are shit, I hope the next gen is better." when these things were getting titles. We would constantly make fun of bad games that came out. Anyone who was playing these systems loved them at the time and heralded them as the peak of performance until PC took the market in the 90's.
The same goes for pretty much every console that has come out since except for PS4 and Xbox One. Since we're nearing the point in time that Consoles aren't even a good decision for casual gamers anymore. With pretty much everything being put on PC now and exclusives being incredibly somewhat less common (or at least, amazing exclusives) PC is the obvious way to go because the experience will always be best, get the most support, and can scale to your hardware. You can have mods and everything else as well.
Now originally, the point of consoles was to take games to the home screen. Computers were expensive and seen as business equipment, you wrote up reports and did calculations on them, they weren't really seen as game machines. The consoles were a great way for you to have games at home and you would save money by not credit-feeding at arcades weekly.
(1/3)

[Anonymous No.4460787]

>>4460784
This was a common thought process. The only thing being you would continually spend cash on is getting more games. Now, when the 90's hit and PC games started gaining traction and PC took off, Consoles still had plenty of exclusives which was why you still bought consoles, but if you had any games that were ported, more often than not the PC version was the best.
Now, Nintendo is really the only company who has retained relevance as a gaming company because most of their titles stay exclusive to their systems, but otherwise Microsoft and Sony have a large portion of their current games being ported to PC so they can maximize the market, but this is part of the reason why their consoles are becoming less and less relevant.

Now for what actually makes games better.
In retro gaming, there's not usually a ton of exposition or build up. The games are pretty simple for the most part. Platformers, Beat 'em ups, Shoot 'em ups, FPS, what have you, they didn't have a ton of story elements to them, they just sorta dumped you into something and said "Have at it". For the best ones, they focused on core gameplay and everything else came after. But you had fun playing the game because the controls worked decently and you could generally figure things out if you pressed buttons and interacted with things around you.
Now, on the other side of things, for more story heavy games. RPGs of all kinds, mostly. RPGs, Adventure, Point and Click, TBS, RTS, and the like. These typically weren't so story heavy that they would spend most of the game explaining things or setting it up, you'd get a main goal and there would be a ton of obstacles you'd have to get through to get there and there were always sideplots happening. The worlds were fun to explore, but not so expansive that you'd spend more time getting lost than anything. You knew what your goal was and you were going to reach it. Sure there were stupid plots, but that didn't stop people from enjoying the games.
(2/3)

[Anonymous No.4460790]

>>4460787
Game companies today are no longer really doing their own things. They follow trends. There's always yet another game that is pretty much exactly the same as some major franchise game currently and they've changed 1 or 2 things about it and that is the only difference it has, but they're releasing it as "COMPLETELY NEW". So after you get "Generic Smooth Shooter #9001" you're left wondering why you spent your cash on it when it's pretty much exactly the same. Not to mention, games are getting too mechanic heavy. Kirby64 is a good example of a retro game that did this. It had a bunch of powers shoe-horned in to be obtuse when you were trying to 100% the game, but were otherwise unnecessary. There's too many games that do this currently where you have a game mechanic that is useful only 1 time ever and then never used again. It's poor game design. Doesn't stop Kirby64 from being a fun and comfy game, it just has some amount of bad game design.

So just saying, the big problem you're currently seeing is that too much is going into the style of a game more than the substance of a game. I don't care much about plot-holes, I don't care much about how amazing a game looks, but it is kind of a bonus if your game looks good, I don't even really care about the story for the most part. Yeah I demand that the story be somewhat interesting if it's a story-based game, but for the most part, I'm interested in the gameplay. If the gameplay is fun, the game will do well. If the gameplay sucks, then it doesn't matter how great anything else is because next to no one will really play your game.
(3/3)

[Anonymous No.4460801]

>>4460790
And now if you've read through that slog, I'm gonna fuck with you and make this (4/3)

These are just some games I've liked, not saying they're fantastic, but they're decent enough.
Modern but retro styled:
>Cuphead
>Devil Daggers
>Evo-Land
>FTL
>Hotline Miami 1&2
>NOT A HERO
>Risk of Rain
>VVVVVV

For some other modern games I like:
>Anti-Chamber
>Battleblock Theatre
>Dark Souls
>Dead Space
>Doom4
>Fallout New Vegas
>Gunpoint
>Kairo
>Legend of Grimrock
>Mass Effect
>Metro
>Rocket League
>Ronin
>Strike Suit Infinity
>Strike Suit Zero
>The Talos Principle

I found them fun, you may not, it's completely cool if anyone says "Wow mate, shit taste" Cuz I know at least a few people are going to do it, and y'know, that's okay because I may disagree with you on what is and isn't a good game. Feel free to recommend other games that are modern but good.

[Anonymous No.4460813]

>>4459430
Less technology and smaller teams forced a focus on tight design, it wasn't really possible to paper over poor gameplay with cinematics and fancy graphics. That isn't to say there wasn't any shovelware or just flat-out failures, but there was a higher number of quality games coming out. By gen 5 we started seeing gameplay take a backseat to cinematics and the novelty of 3D, and in subsequent generations we saw fewer and fewer games from big devs with classic good game design principles. More and more devs started shutting down or getting bought out and people became conditioned to accept increasingly inferior games and business practices. Finally, we saw increasing fragmentation in the market with 3 consoles, a variety of PC builds and mobile/tablets splitting dev efforts and rewarding generic multiplat games with big marketing budgets and/or games with incremental spending hooks.

I don't really see things going back to how they were barring some massive upheaval in the market which isn't really likely either as the big players are pretty solidly positioned and won't change their business practices. We will see decreasing hardware sales and fewer devs with indie devs filling in the gaps but it'll never go back to the healthy market environment of ~20 years ago.

[Anonymous No.4460815]

>>4460790
>Game companies today are no longer really doing their own things. They follow trends.
But that's always been true. In fact, that's always been true of virtually every artform ever. The artist who truly reinvents the wheel and creates his or her own personal universe is extremely rare. You can say that there was, on average, more innovation in the retro era, and you might even be right, but you certainly can't say that developers didn't follow trends. Just think of the glut of mascot platformers, or all the "Doom clones" that got made back then.

[Anonymous No.4460824]

>>4460815
You're right on that, but at the time there was enough innovation happening outside of FPS that was still viable in the market.
Not to mention, most of those cash grabs quietly went back to the "Literally who" territory because everyone knew who the real king of the genre was.

[Anonymous No.4460830]

>>4460769
Yes, afraid. Development costs of games have risen, so they are riskier and therefore they have to play it safer than before to not go bankrupt

[Anonymous No.4460832]

>>4460765
FIFA 98 literally best retro gaym you're /v/irgins would never understand (anime picture)

/ sarcasm

[Anonymous No.4460918]

>>4460830
It's cheaper and easier to both make and market games now thsn it ever has been.
Plus the potential user base is much larger so even very niche games have a chance of finding enough players to make it profitable. This is one of the reasons roguelikes for example are thriving so well these days. It's not a time for fear at all.

[Anonymous No.4460919]

Also, technological limitations made the developers humble and more creative. You could make an epic game then, but the limitations forced you to make room for your imagination and to try to tell more with less.

Also, developers were not rock stars so things were more private and more energy was spent in the games. The creators of games as big as Street Fighter II or Golden Axe were almost complete unknowns until recently.

[Anonymous No.4461018]

>>4460918
The fact than they can make them cheaper doesn't mean they do. Most best selling games right now spend a FUCK TON of cash in them in both the game and even more the marketing. This makes competitors want to do the same or else their games will feel cheap in comparison. It's why it feels as if we only have AAA or indie pixel stuff and not much in between (even if there is some of that midrange more classic stuff still)

[Anonymous No.4461040]

>>4459661
i hate you

[Anonymous No.4461148]

>>4460621
Which was completely cancelled, and everyone knew about that.
As I said, those people are retarded.

>>4460639
I don't play modern weebshit because I don't have modern consoles - they aren't worth buing for just 2-3 good weeb games, and weeb ports to PC always were and always will be crap because japs can't into PC.

[Anonymous No.4461220]

>>4459440
It's not that we hate modern games, it's just that the board is very explicitly about retro ones and there's a board for modern games.

Don't join the book club if you wanted to talk about theater.

[Anonymous No.4461420]

>>4459653
No. It was soulless and boring. At the very least, it's a massive step down from what Zelda used to be.

[Anonymous No.4461573]

>>4459430
most of my favorite games come from 1997-2002; there's just something about that level of technology and the aesthetics and preferences of that time

but then I also like a few gems from later, like ff12, bioshock 1, deadspace 1, skyrim, and underrail

it's always been that there's a few games from any period that are good, while the vast majority aren't

[Anonymous No.4461826]

>>4461018
I feel like we live in different universes.

[Anonymous No.4461861]

>>4459430
Fight'n Rage

[Anonymous No.4461863]

>>4459648
1. Click Settings (bottom/top of page)

2. Click Filters & Post Hiding

3. Toggle and Edit "Filter and highlight specific threads/posts"

4. Toggle "On", "Auto", and "Hide". Leave "Boards" empty. Then enter a pattern:

For namefags, like Killy for example, add this (as type "Name"):

Killy

For tripfags utilizing ordinary tripcodes, like Eliza !METS.GNIWQ for example, add this (as type "Tripcode"):

!METS.GNIWQ

For tripfags utilizing secure tripcodes, like STHLM !!6Gk3cvqPqbL for example, add this (as type "Tripcode"):

!!6Gk3cvqPqbL

You can also filter tripfags on a name-basis. This will allow your filter to persist even though they switch username passwords.

5. Click "Save" and "Save Settings".

Only stubs will be left of comments made by these users.

---

You can also filter comments containing specific words, like "cuck", by using a comment type filter.

Complete threads containing specific words can can also be filtered, through the "Filters" menu in Catalog.

If you use 4chan X, then you can also filter the stubs of the comments.

[Anonymous No.4462060]

>>4460741
So anything from a 2600 to Saturn game made after January 1, 2000 is a "modern" game?

[Anonymous No.4462123]

Rationally, retro has a "solved" permanent collection of games. You know EXACTLY what games are considered the best and which are the worst.

But mostly, it's nostalgia and people wanting to be elitist. Not to mention that the youngbloods who are part of the scene can just emulate retro games easier than pirating modern games.

[Anonymous No.4462126]

Modern games look too busy to me visually.

[Anonymous No.4462190]

>>4462126
A lot of developers are avoiding their games to look like games. You can see it in the modern obssesion with removing HUDs, making ambient music instead of catchy soundtracks, and a lack of lightness and sense of humor (unless it's irony).

Some games like Yakuza still aren't afraid at all to look like games. They are realist but still a bit cartoony.

[Anonymous No.4462315]

>>4459430
Niche markets allowed design not dictated committees. Smaller budgets due to less fidelity and content-expectations allowed smaller development teams to work together more freely, and in turn, enabling tighter, more refined production pipelines. Also, there's might be some sort of darwinistic element in smaller scale environment and less streamlined tools causing bad developers being filtered out before they had much impact on the industry. Maybe.

[Anonymous No.4462347]

>>4461826
So you're telling me you think most popular / best selling games now don't spend a ridiculous amount of money on production and marketing, particularly compared to vr times?

This is pretty much a fact, I don't see how this isn't true

[Anonymous No.4462350]

>>4459430
>What makes retro gaming intrinsically better?
autism and nostalgia

[Anonymous No.4462375]

>>4462347
Since when were we only talking about the most popular / best selling games? Of course the stuff that is going for the biggest audience is going to have the highest production values possible. That will always be the case.

The sheer volume of games being made even from tiny studios with little in the way of resources shows how far gane design has come in being more accessible and cheaper. Turrican isn't such a bizzare outlier anymore, this is a wonderful age of independent game making, I love it.

[Anonymous No.4464127]

>>4462375
1. You can'y deny production costs for popular has exponentially increased

2. It matters since these are the games that set the trends and impact the industry the most and its (bad) direction

[Anonymous No.4464215]

>>4459538
>Retro developers had more passion and skill, and weren't so worried and focused on making a shitload of money.
>being this delusional

[Anonymous No.4464217]

>>4460639
Jap games suck. Get with the times.

[Anonymous No.4464351]

>>4464127
I already agreed with the first part but you're wrong about the second part.

[Anonymous No.4464447]

>>4459452
Yeah, that's because you never got erased, warned or even banned just for answering a mere question about PS2 games.

[Anonymous No.4464484]

>>4459434
>90% of retro games are shit
opinion-discarded.jpg

[Anonymous No.4464704]

>>4464351
How is point 2 wrong? The games that are the most popular, which are the best selling, are the ones that are going to shape the industry the most. The ones that are going to be copied (either the entire game or specific aspects like how lootboxes have exploded since Overwatch) from other devs trying to cash in. The ones that most people play.

So if these are the games that have huge production costs on modern consoles, to the point where you hear of the "AAA industry" concept, how is this not relevant?

[Anonymous No.4464726]

>>4464704
Not everyone is trying to make something big and popular enough to appeal to everyone. Of course many do, but there is still plenty of room for highly niche titles to find success. The mere fact that so many of you complain about low production values in indie games is proof positive of that. And of course good production will help a product sell better, that's the case with everythig. There's no fear though.