ITT: I can't believe it's actually retro

[Anonymous No.4751229]

This is a PS2 remake of a 1999 arcade game that ran on a 1996 board and a 1997 engine.

Therefore, it's retro, but we never talk about it here. I love how it looks, sometimes it evens looks like a 90's CG.

[Anonymous No.4751232]

Is this retro? It's a remake of a 1991 Game Boy game, but a thread about it was deleted about a month ago.

[Anonymous No.4751237]

>>4751232
about as retro as Metroid ZM and Minstrel Song, but people talk about those here anyway and don't care.

[Anonymous No.4751245]

>>4751229
Feel free to discuss Namco System 12 games all you like! How many games do you own? What cabinet do you have it in? That, at least be interesting. But your not an interesting person with anything of interest to say here. This is nothing more than flimsy loophole to ruin /vr/ with PS2 games and discuss their lame CG cutscenes.

[Sage No.4751248]

You know I had to sage and report it to em.

[Anonymous No.4751250]

>muh retro
retro is a stupid marketing term at this point.

[Anonymous No.4751254]

>>4751248
based
>>4751250
retard
>>4751232
Great game.

[Anonymous No.4751256]

>>4751229

You can talk about the arcade version all you'd like.

[Anonymous No.4751259]

>>4751250
It’s been co-opted by hipster faggots to mean anything with pixel art but they don’t have to strip it of its true meaning, which is of course referring to generations before the 6th.

[Anonymous No.4751263]

Well, if it's a PS2 remake, it's not exactly retro. It would be retro if it was a port.
Still, discussing remakes of old games is OK in my book. Making bait threads, however, isn't.

[Anonymous No.4751276]

>>4751229
The PS2 version is a ground-up remake therefore a different game. Sorry kid, I wanna have somewhere to discuss one of the greatest fighting games of all times too

[Anonymous No.4751282]

>>4751256
>>4751248
>>4751245
But remakes are allowed, regardless of the system.

If we can talk about Zero Mission, why not Tekken Tag?

[Anonymous No.4751284]

>>4751276
But almost every remake is built from ground up.

[Anonymous No.4751301]

>>4751282
Mods and staff have never said remakes are allowed, enforcement against them is just very lax. Threads and posts about remakes still get pruned and deleted from time to time. Generally threads comparing remakes to originals are let be as they are still on topic in some sense because the discussion includes the original.

[Anonymous No.4751304]

>>4751282
I know it’s “technically” retro, but I’m tired the recent influx of rule changer posts and blatant 6th gen post by /v/ invaders. So this thread can fuck off.

[Anonymous No.4751313]

I don't get why GBA remakes and even the Taxman remakes are "more allowed" tha PS2 remakes.

[Anonymous No.4751325]

>>4751229

Tekken Tag actually has the most polygons per character out of all PS2 Tekken games.

The cinematic look was no coincidence, Sony pushed this shit really hard during launch year, and Namco went with it. I also love the over detailed textures and CG-like look, better than Tekken 5.

[Anonymous No.4751335]

>>4751229
Okay then, I'll put Rayman Advance because it's a port of a 1995 game... Also the first game that introduced me to the franchise.

[Anonymous No.4751369]

>>4751245
>their lame CG cutscenes

I'm the dude constantly advocating for the creation of /v2k/ but you're the biggest faggot of them all.

[Anonymous No.4751391]

>>4751229
ports are retro. remakes aren't.

however remakes are ok to talk about depending on the fanbase, but not acceptable as a main topic here.
for instance the dragon quest community is ok with talking about the ds remakes when they come up in conversation, but never allows a thread about them specifically because its not retro.

shit like the ff7 remake will never be allowed at all however because it would basically kill the board

[Anonymous No.4751404]

>>4751391
>but not acceptable as a main topic here.
amount of am2r threads in the day says otherwise

[Anonymous No.4751412]

>>4751313
Because you're being an obnoxious shit.

[Anonymous No.4751567]

>>4751229
1999 was almost 20 years ago. Holy shit.

[Anonymous No.4751584]

>>4751567
You feel it too, uh?

[Anonymous No.4751605]

>>4751229
no, it's not "retro" according to the rules

is this hard to understand?

[Anonymous No.4751613]

>>4751605
remakes are allowed

[Anonymous No.4751628]

Your childhood will NEVER EVER be allowed here, nu-/v/. Now fuck off back to your cancerous shithole.