[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

Maintenance is complete! We got more disk space.
Become a Patron!

/vr/ - Retro Games

View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 2.38 MB, 2048x1102, Dreamcast.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
5118906 No.5118906 [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe]

An obvious troll thread was just deleted, but I'd like to present a serious argument why PS2 should be considered a retro console by now. That is, if /vr/ existed in the year 2000 when PlayStation 2 was brand new, then going by today's rules, the 17 year old NES/Famicom couldn't be discussed on the board, even though it would certainly be a retro console by that point.
It's becoming more and more apparent with each thread on PS1 games that the two first Sony consoles are very tied together library-wise - much more so than any other two consoles of the brand. And I think it's especially important to start talking about PS2 seeing how it led to the fall of Dreamcast, a console that we can already discuss here. Tabooing PS2 jeopardizes the free exchange of opinions on that matter.

>> No.5118908

Last Hope is a tremendous piece of shit overrated by collectors, worst R-Type 2 clone I've ever played. It shouldn't be on that chart.

>> No.5118909

How about no?

>> No.5118914

I understand that the console's library is very bloated, but eventually we'll probably have to include PS2 anyways. For now we might allow the games released up until 2005 or 2006 when the next generation of consoles came out, but early 00's are in my opinion old enough to be eligible topic of discussion here.

>> No.5118926

So you're suggesting rather than a cutoff based on console, we have cutoffs for individual games based on their release date? Games released until Dec 31 2005 - OKAY , Jan 01 2006 - off topic?

>> No.5118931
File: 66 KB, 400x400, cringe_earthbound.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

I don't really have an opinion on the whole "what is retro" autism, but I'd wager most people just want a board to discuss games they played in their teens/have nostalgia for.

Like Silent Hill 2 or Persona 3. Wind Waker and Twilight Princess etc.

>> No.5118946

in all honesty, everything up to about 04 should be kosher. But then it starts to get super arbitrary. Not that the current cutoff isn't arbitrary already, but there's a lot of room for shit to get messy. Frankly I'd rather just not include anything past 99, as it keeps even more babies from flooding this place with angsty red pill idiocy

>> No.5118950

>not include anything past 99
There's only so many times you can really talk about a 16-bit 2D platformer or a 2.5D shooter.

>> No.5118957

Last PS2 game was like 2014. Its still not retro.

>> No.5118974

Last snes game was 2017, so it's not retro by that logic.

>> No.5118980

there's no argument to be had
silent hill 2, kingdom hearts, FFXII, shadow of the colossus, mgs2 and 3, persona 3 etc. are not and will never be retro

>> No.5118981

The only fucking reason this board exists is that the 90's pop culture is really in vogue right now, hence the 1999 year cut off.

>> No.5118982

technically retro. Anything not considered modern anymore is retro, just not by this board's standards.
Anything older than 20 years is technically vintage.

>> No.5118983

They are old, but not part of the retro era.

>> No.5118984

Since most people were in their teens when the ps2 came out, the magic when they were kids faded away, so it will never be retro in their eyes. Kinda the reason why the ps1 and n64 were not considered retro for a long time and also due to the "if it has 3d graphics, then it ain't retro!" autism,

>> No.5118985

yeah that's nice, now ask Hiroshima for /v2k/ or rename this board into "20th century gaming" because 6th gen isn't getting here

>> No.5118992


>> No.5118997

Never argued that it should. Just pointing out how this board is throwing words around that don't apply and act surprised when people don't understand why the ps2 and others aren't allowed in a 'retro' board.

But very great rebuttal, solid argument

>> No.5119001

PS2 should be retro just because as for now one of the greatest consoles dont have a place to discuss it.
Most of /v/ DGAF about anything that is not 8gen and because of that PS2 threads drift slowly to page 10 where they fall of the board.
Not enough people who even played PS2.
/vr/ on the other hand draw an arbitrary line and sperg out every time someone attempts to cross it.

Dreamcast is six gen, yet it is allowed here.
We might need to let in whole six gen as well tho.
Still better than leave it out hanging in the open with no place to discuss shit.

There is no downsides to it as for now, blindly following rules not really doing any good.

>> No.5119019

This thread was moved to >>>/qa/2380144

Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.