[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/vr/ - Retro Games

View post   
File: 32 KB, 540x309, 2172822_1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6978301 No.6978301 [Reply] [Original]

When it comes to retro games, does anyone else feel like consoles receive an outsized amount of attention, and retro PC games aren't discussed enough? Why is this?

I was big into PC gaming back in the 90's. It had a thriving online bulletin board and discussion community. Frankly, I always thought that there were a greater number of quality PC releases. This isn't true for all genres, but generally PC games were more innovative. The graphics were better, ideas were often "tested" on PC before going to console, and of course PC had online matchmaking. I obviously had a NES, Genesis, SNES, PSX, Saturn, PS2, Dreamcast, etc., but I'd throw them all away for retro PC games. I mean, SMB1 and SMB3 were pretty special, but consoles didn't have games like Descent, FreeSpace, MechWarrior, Wasteland, Fallout, Baldur's Gate, Diablo, StarCraft, C&C, Quake 1/2, TFC, Day of the Tentacle, Sam and Max, and many other genre-defining titles (yes, I know some of these were ported... poorly).

Even on /vr/, most of the threads are about consoles. Is this due to nothing but consumerism? Console cartridges are "collectible" in a way that retro PC games aren't. Is that why, or is there more to it? I just don't get it. I feel like I'm crazy for thinking that retro PC games were obviously superior, in general.

>> No.6978312

>>6978301
Commodore 64s were considered to be PCs back then, and they get discussed fairly often here. Not IBM PCs, but "personal computers." Same for pretty much anything like that, from the FM Towns to the Apple II.
As for the subject at hand, most of the games that were on MS DOS / Windows were also ported to Mac, and looked better. But that's richfag hours.
IBM compatibles didn't seem to have the edge over other computers until DOOM, anyway.

>> No.6978316

PC gaming was niche until well into 5th gen compared to the near hundred million consoles that did nothing but play games. Apart from Doom, almost every other game was a shitty text adventure or a sim. All other games sold better on console/micro.

>> No.6978319

>>6978301
>does anyone else feel like consoles receive an outsized amount of attention, and retro PC games aren't discussed enough?
Not really, no. Most people had consoles as kids, and this board is primarily about aging men revisiting their childhood.

>> No.6978340

Retro pc games (outside of the non 3d dos games) are just notoriously hard to run on modern hardware and not everyone is up to setting up a retro gaming machine or an almost fully functioning emulator.

>> No.6978408

>>6978301
Nope. When you've been here more than a week you'll see that PCs get more than enough discussion.

>> No.6978537
File: 2.80 MB, 2016x1512, DOSbox_preparations.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6978537

>>6978301
I think it still gets great attention. Id titles like Doom and Quake continues to stay pretty relevant since their release. A lot of the big companies from back then like Blizzard and Bioware continue to shape popular games for both PC and console games, but recognized for their old history and origin with PC games. Comparatively with consoles, maybe you notice they have a more unified shared experience from hardware that is mostly similar, but with retro PCs, the hardware and experience and wildly differ.

I too had great experiences with a large variety of consoles and PCs, but I would not throw one away as they both defined the games I enjoyed in my past. I don't think of one as superior to the other, but they all are pieces that form a whole.