Serious question. How much of the content and discussions of this board is guided by pure nostalgia? A longing for that brief, innocent time in all of our lives when we were ten or eleven. Staying up all night finishing OoT, or skipping school and spending half the day at the Golden Saucer?
Is there any objective truth to the value of these retro games? Or is this all one shared, subjective, pool of nostalgia? One option isn't necessarily better than any other.
It's just videogames, technically it's all dull mindless entertainment.
>>3114579
I would say probably 25% overall. Some people are mostly guided by nostalgia, some don't care about it at all. Most are about in the middle.
I don't know about objective truth, but there are a lot of old games I still like many years later and there are old games I try for the first time and find I like as well. I also like many new games as well though.
>>3114579
Its just video games what the fuck are you on about.
>>3114579
>Is there any objective truth to the value of these retro games? Or is this all one shared, subjective, pool of nostalgia?
Both. False dichotomy.
>>3114580
But anon, games are one of the few forms of entertainment that can actually be mindful at times.
>>3114591
Go away hipster.
>>3114589
Good call.
>>3114579
I pretty much only discuss modding here. So no. 0% nostalgia, 100% new content and troubleshooting.
>>3114579
>How much of the content and discussions of this board is guided by pure nostalgia?
80-90%.
>Is there any objective truth to the value of these retro games?
No.
>Or is this all one shared, subjective, pool of nostalgia?
No, luckily.
So, what are you getting at?
>>3114595
I don't know what you people even mean when you use that word anymore.
I called off work for two days when I bought Kartia: World of Fate earlier this year. Never played it before.
>>3114608
NOT RETRO
MODS
>>3114620
How did that work out with the employer?
I'd say:
30% what are your opinions on game/system/franchise/etc threads
20% technical issues/hardware threads
20% collection/prices threads
15% actual discussions on random stuff
15% random shitposting
>>3114579
/vr/'s been pretty shitty for discussion lately largely because:
>circlejerk threads
>NOT RETRO >>>/v/ shitposters derailing decent threads into general shitposting
>Everything popular has been discussed to death, anything not overly popular rarely gets traction, resulting in the same threads day in day out
I don't know how you fix it, except by maybe trying to do like a game of the week or game of the month or something to stimulate people. But we all know how things like that go, with the /vr/ gauntlet being dead in the water.
I'm basically gonna try and convert the time I spent here to learning Japanese so I can try and play more obscure games that never got released here, or will in all likelihood never get an english translation.
>>3114654
>I'm basically gonna try and convert the time I spent here to learning Japanese so I can try and play more obscure games that never got released here
Finally someone that gets the true /vr/ priorities, godspeed anon, you've made the right choice.
>>3114654
>>Everything popular has been discussed to death, anything not overly popular rarely gets traction, resulting in the same threads day in day out
I think this is the biggest problem. /vr/ is a fairly small board and any opinions on popular topics have been gone over to death. Meanwhile less popular topics are pretty much DOA.
>>3114668
>Finally someone that gets the true /vr/ priorities,
There are "true /vr/ priorities"? What does that even mean? I post here because when I'm at work it's a decent place to catch up on and discuss old games.
>>3114676
>There are "true /vr/ priorities"
Yeah, playing retro games, and one who decides to learn a language to play all the games he missed out due to language barriers or localization problem has the right mindset.
This place is getting more and more filled up with people who only talk about the games they played in their childhood but rarely tries something else, someone who decides to learn a new language, and japanese especially, in order to play more games can only get respect from.
>>3114681
Would a /nost/ board help solve the problem? I honestly feel there's a genuine need for it. You find these topics scattered across other boards like /v/, /r9k/, etc. People just want somewhere to gather and discuss shit from their childhood.
>>3114618
He's saying that you're too cool for this place.
>>3114683
>Would a /nost/ board help solve the problem?
I don't think so, it's just that 4chan has a lot of traffic and we're getting flooded with low quality posters who are just here because they have too much free time on their hands.
I mean, I don't mind friendly banter or slight off topic, non-/vr/ derailments once in a while, but since half a year the board's quality has taken a truly heavy hit. It's full of manchildren and kids who want to fling shit at each other because of their taste, like when we got flooded by Sonic shitposting threads.
There's hardly anything new going on and as it was mentioned before, when people try to start a discussion about games that aren't as popular as the big names they either fade into obscurity, get shitposted to oblivion or get a dozen replies at best.
I'm tired of the umpteenth Trigger VS Cross, Castlevania shitposting threads and people calling you hipster because you actually play retro games other than your childhood ones and really like your hobby. I just want to talk about retro games and find out cool things and help my bros out.
>>3114654
>Everything popular has been discussed to death, anything not overly popular rarely gets traction, resulting in the same threads day in day out
Exactly. If you've been here for a month, you've seen it all.
>>3114579
90% nostalgia. People do not come here to broaden their horizon. They just want to hear their opinions echoed and bath in some nostalgia.
>>3114579
The objective truth to these games is that we all have our own subjective reasons for valuing them.
I honestly don't know why you give a shit what other people like and why, unless you're wildly insecure.
>>3114654
Elitism doesn't do the board any favors.
Creating a barrier to entry to people wanting to discuss games. The blatant fanboyism and still going console wars (Why the fuck is there another Genesis vs. SNES thread, related to sound, who fucking cares about this shit). Even technical stuff like asking about CRT's or upscalers, or the constantly asking "does it have input lag?" "I don't want to play it unless it's perfect" board culture we've developed is incredibly cancerous to actual discussion. People seem to care more about flaunting their perfect PVM's and RGB modded consoles than actually talking about games sometimes.
>>3114591
Not really most games are dumb shit for teenagers. If you wanna be intellectually stimulated go play professional chess or something.
>>3114704
>. It's full of manchildren and kids
In my opinion is the complaining here that's worse than anything. It's like everyone is mad at everyone over something all the time.
>There's hardly anything new going on and as it was mentioned before
>I'm tired of the umpteenth Trigger VS Cross, Castlevania shitposting threads
This is why I think we need to find a way to bring more people in. This board is really quite small, and much as I would like to have real discussions about more obscure games, it's hard when there's almost no one else around who's actually played them.
>>3114726
All he was saying is it's more engaging to play a game and have to be thinking about things than just passively watching Keeping Up With the Kardashians or something.
But I guess there's also a difference between reality TV and engaging documentaries the way there's a difference in games.
>>3114579
Well I'll admit when I say that I have nostalgia for the video games I've played growing up, but there are many games, old and new, that just garner my interest. It's not about nostalgia that drives me to play older games, I'm just fascinated by the concepts of video games, how they're designed, how they evolve, etc.
I like video games because video games, simple as that.
>>3114731
Anyone can get to the end of a TV show or movie, you literally just need to sit there and veg out.
Most games require attention, some more so than others. While there are similarities, it's not something everyone can do. Some people just can't be bothered to have to engage in a game even if it's something that is actually incredibly casual, because literally doing nothing is easier than playing a video game.
That's the harsh reality we live in. It's easier to watch a youtube Let's Play than play the game yourself. Theres a reason Let's Plays are so popular, the young generation literally finds it easier, and more enjoyable to watch than play.
I find some gaming channels fun to watch, if they're useful (like discussing aspects of certain games, giving tips and advice on how to improve, etc) or providing exposure to games or systems I'm unfamiliar with, but when the majority of gaming channels are literally Let's Plays of the latest games, it seems so insane. It's so over saturated. Do you really want to sit and watch someone play Dark Souls 3 for 30 hours instead of playing it yourself? It just doesn't compute with me.
Then again, I like Red Letter Media, and I listen to the Mr. Plinkett Star Wars reviews every couple of months, but I guess that is a little different.
>>3114727
>and much as I would like to have real discussions about more obscure games, it's hard when there's almost no one else around who's actually played them
Make a thread anyway, there will always be someone willing to try something new. I made a thread about Street Gangs and their spiritual sequels and I remember some anons reporting they were going to play them.
>>3114704
I don't disagree with the sentiment or with the thought that less bad posts is better. The thread popularity issue will always be there however, remember that the biggest games will always have the most fans and thus get the most discussion. It's just how it is. If you want to encourage something more then you'll have to make something like a "play a retro game in a genre you hate" thread. Explain what you dislike about them and see if someone can recommend you one that will suit your preferences better.
>>3114745
Ohh I have. Or used to more in the past. But unless they're popular they tend to just 404.
>>3114741
I think a lot of the kids watching Let's Plays were never going to play those games anyways. So that's just their way of experiencing it. I don't really know, I don't get them. I can't stand watching someone else play a game.
Haven't watched those red letter videos in ages. The whole Jar Jar evil thing made me rethink Phantom Menace completely. Now in that light I almost like it.
>>3114756
For what it's worth, I usually remember when someone mentions an obscure game, and even if I don't rush out and play it right away to comment, I might get to it a couple months later. I know that's a really slow and nebulous return on investment, but it does affect some people. A lot of times on /vr/ I will see people mention having played something that they saw months earlier, or end up picking something up because they just see the title mentioned a few times.
Even just generating a little interest is good in the long run. Don't get discouraged, there are people reading who care, even if it might not seem like it!
>>3114579
Back in 2012 when this shit started to get really hot I saw these kind of comments all the time. So it kind of got me playing some old games I hadn’t in years and watch some old anime. I had always had these games but anime I hadn’t really watched in forever.
You know what? Everything I’ve played and watch has been as good or better than what I remember.
OoT still the best game I’ve played. Most the old games I loved I consider far better than anything modern on console released in the last 10 years.
For anime I went and watched the Sailor Moon. Still has great visuals. Still has it weird slow moments. Exactly as I remembered.
Played Dreamland 3. As cozy and fun as I remember. Actually this one was better than I remembered.
I went and watched Cowboy Bebop again. Yep as good as I remembered. I had actually forgotten a lot of it so it was neat to watch again.
Same goes for the stuff from the 80s to. I was a kid in the 90s so I didn’t spend too much time on NES or watch much from early 80s anime.
I’ve come to the conclusion that people are fucking retarded. I enjoy the shit out of this stuff. Even stuff from before my time in the 80s I enjoy. More time than not I enjoy it far more than modern games.
So I say test it out for yourself.
>>3114828
I have practically no emotional connection to any item on your pic, but I love that pic as a whole. The composition, style, color choice, it all works. Thanks for posting
>>3114841
Ya I do wish I could find the original resolution pic though.
>>3114579
It's the same thing as boomers and music from the 60s - 70s. They loved it growing up, and keep going back to their favorite bands of the era. In the same way, those of us in our 20s-30s who grew up with video games have the same fond memories.
>>3114928
Music and movies examples never made sense to me.
>>3114940
Not him, but why not? I think they're very close.
>retro games
>retro
>which means old
>literally a board about games from the past
>surprised that people here are nostalgic (enjoying things from their past)
>>3114994
>which means old
not necessarily
>surprised that people here are nostalgic
there are more reasons to play these games than nostalgia
>>3114913
Is this big enough? >>>/hr/2626539
>>3114980
Because people go and point out something along the lines of "Oh there's always been shit music you just only remember or focus on the good".
Like how is that a point? No shit people only listen to the good music. Look at the top lists. Now look at modern top songs. It’s free memes every year for /mu/ it’s so bad.
>>3115008
Thanks
>>3115028
30 seconds in google. You're welcome though.
>>3115023
>No shit people only listen to the good music. Look at the top lists. Now look at modern top songs. It’s free memes every year for /mu/ it’s so bad.
How is this any different from how the people around here talk about modern games?
Of course there have people who say you only remember the good. The Beatles are more popular than The Cars. But that doesn't mean no one liked The Cars. But it also doesn't mean there weren't and aren't people who think they're shit.
It's all the same.
>>3115041
>How is this any different from how the people around here talk about modern games?
I’ll sum it up nice and easy.
Look at PS1’s top 10.
Look at PS3’s top 10.
>>3115075
Tastes changed and you liked the top PS1 games better than PS3? I don't care much about any of the games there. With a gun to my head I'd play GTA over fucking Crash though.
Still still looks exactly the same as people who say thing about movies or music.
>>3115106
No you're missing the point.
I wasn't around in the 80s. I still enjoy games from that time.
Now? Fuck no. Modern games are exactly what I linked with that picture.
>>3115107
No they're not. Sales do not equal quality.
I told you this the last time you posted this image.
>>3115110
>No they're not. Sales do not equal quality.
Obviously. That isn't the debate.
Are you saying modern games are good because you like random obscure games?
Last I checked nobody says "Ya those 80s games are fucking great as long as you stay away from the top 10 trash".
>>3115110
But clearly Frogger is the 3rd best PS1 game.
>>3115107
>I wasn't around in the 80s. I still enjoy games from that time.
You mean like people who weren't born in the 60's who still like the Beatles? Nothing is different.
>>3115113
Not to mention that he posted three top 10 lists with the implication that the PS1 one looked great compared to the others. But being a cranky old gamer already, Crash looks just as much like new hot trash as the Call of Dutys.
I've rarely liked what's big and popular, but there's always still plenty of stuff to play.
>>3115113
I think there is a point where brodudes began to sway top sales charts. But you can see that in the PS1 list with Gran Turismo.
You're really out of touch if you think the only good modern games are obscure.
>>3115127
Dude bros is a myth. In the 90's video gaming started to gain more mainstream appeal because almost everyone had played them.
Previous to that, college aged people into video games were rare and mostly not big in the social scene. However as the crop of kids who all played Nintendo in the 80's aged, it suddenly wasn't so weird that the guys going to frat parties were also playing games.
>>3115128
>Previous to that, college aged people into video games were rare and mostly not big in the social scene. However as the crop of kids who all played Nintendo in the 80's aged, it suddenly wasn't so weird that the guys going to frat parties were also playing games.
I was born in the late 90s/2000 the post
>>3115129
>Are you guys saying Halo, CoD, or Uncharted are good games?
They probably are. I haven't played them, but there's probably a reason why they're popular.
It seems like the only issue people have with them are the yearly sequels.
>>3115129
>Are you guys saying Halo, CoD, or Uncharted are good games?
None of them are games I like, but I know people who like one or all three and they seem perfectly good for the people who like those games.
My point was that none of them look any worse than Crash to me.
>>3115130
I was born in 1974, but thanks for making yet another "I disagree so you must be young" post. Always quality.
>>3115129
>No body says to stay away from the big games in the 80s and 90s.
What are pac-man and E.T on atari 2600.
>>3115138
>>3115139
So since a lot of people play them you need to put a hugbox around those games to avoid any kind of criticism?
Ya you fucks are young or cancer.
You haven't even played but just put a label of "Well those guys like them so they must be good".
I've played these games. Been playing games since the 4th generation while they were NEW. The big modern games like that are horrible. That is giving them credit.
>>3115145
Pacman isn't that bad. It's just a bad arcade adaption.
ET isn't that bad either but I'm sure you'll throw your favorite ecelebs opinion at me.
>>3115146
>So since a lot of people play them you need to put a hugbox around those games to avoid any kind of criticism?
A game doesn't have to be perfect or original to be good.
Also, nice flipping out when people disagree with you.
>>3115146
>So since a lot of people play them you need to put a hugbox around those games to avoid any kind of criticism?
Who said anything about a hugbox? I don't care if people like CoD and Uncharted. They're free to play whatever they want.
I in fact have played Uncharted at a friend's request and hated everything I played. But he digs it and has fun so that's all that matters to him. I love Monster Hunter which he doesn't care about. We all have different tastes.
But again, let's bring this back to Crash Bandicoot. Because that's how Uncharted felt to me. Real pretty, but stuck on a tight track and boring as fuck to play. But there are people out there who LOVE Crash.
I have the same attitude towards someone who likes Crash as I do someone who likes CoD or Uncharted. Which is, "I'm glad you're having fun with your games. I'll be over here playing different ones."
>>3114579
I'm here for hidden gems and translated games.
>>3115146
>The big modern games like that are horrible.
They have rather other tastes.
>>3115152
I'm just saying those are top games from the 80s where people are commonly told to stay away from.
>>3115161
>>3115162
If you don't like Crash then you don't like one of the defining games off the console.
Personally I think it funny when people try to criticize Crash because it's usually either it's too 2d or it's not 3d enough.
CoD is why most people buy a PS3. It is the defining game of that generation.
I like 5th gen games the best. But I like 7th and 8th gen games better than 6th gen ones on average. 6th gen was awkward in my opinion.
>>3115169
>I don't understand why people don't like a game I like
>I don't understand why people like a game I don't like
>In the same fucking post
>>3115169
>If you don't like Crash then you don't like one of the defining games off the console.
And? Big fucking deal. I don't like some shitty game that you think is important. Why the fuck does it matter?
>>3115169
>If you don't like Crash then you don't like one of the defining games off the console.
No disagreement there at all. It's the same with Halo and Call of Duty. I recognize they were defining games of the system, but I didn't like them.
>>3115169
>If you don't like Crash then you don't like one of the defining games off the console.
Okay, now hold that in your mind.
Now think of the way you look at Halo and Cod as games that defined a console and led to a lot of shitty games you didn't like?
That's how I feel about Crash Bandicoot, and those fucking collect-a-thon trash 3D platformers like Spyro.
>>3115172
>>3115173
>that you think is important.
What?
It's a defining game. You're telling the biggest selling game isn't the defining one?
It's fucking console seller.
>>3115175
Then how can you say modern games are good.
Generally when you judge something you look at what it has offer. It's prominent features.
You don't go and look in the back closet and say "wow look at this game I found. Modern games are amazing!"
>>3115180
Ok you hate platformers of that gen.There were lots of other big games out there.
I'm not a big fan of traditional RPGs. I can still give my opinion on them based on the art style, story, and music. The gameplay will always be meh to me.
>>3115181
>Then how can you say modern games are good.
Because there have always been games I didn't care about. If I went with your argument I would also think PS1 era games are bad, but I don't.
I don't think Call of Duty is a bad game, I just think it's a game I'm not interested in. And that doesn't bother me, because I have plenty of other games I am interested in to play. That's the great thing about games, especially these days. There's a ton of variety.
If I limited what I play to only the top 10 anything it would be a pretty boring life.
>>3115129
i hear you anon
>>3115185
>There were lots of other big games out there.
Yeah, that didn't make it onto the top 10 list. Exactly the same as now. Is any of this sinking in yet?
>>3115189
>Because there have always been games I didn't care about.
Same here. Difference is no I can just look at the greatest hits and use that as the filter to find good games.
Where as before I knew that green label meant I may enjoy it.
>>3115194
If you can't find 1 game in the top 10 for PS1 you just hate games man. I'm serious.
Hell if you can't find 3-5 you probably just hate games.
>>3115202
I'm going by this list >>3115075 GT is solid, but I don't care about racers, Frogger PS1 was meh, Crash I don't like at all.
I don't care about the CoDs either. GTA isn't great, but I at least like it better than those.
All that said though, I have loved every single console and they've all had games I consider classic favorites. I'm just not concerned if those games are in the top 10 or not.
>>3115198
It sounds like you need to get used to the fact that you're no longer the target demographic for the system. I felt that way at one time.
>>3115212
Why would that effect my opinion? I've known for awhile these games aren't marketed to me.
>>3115216
It sounds like you still have the expectation that they should be targeting you. If you're over that, then congrats. Ignore top seller lists, pay attention to what you like in games and go from there.
>>3115216
I can't keep up with your opinion.
So you're saying you hate modern games because you don't like the best sellers.
Why would that matter? Play games that interest you and don't try to keep up with trends.
>>3115221
He's butthurt that there are a lot of people out there who want to play CoD. He can't stand that whatever game he wants to be the top 10 best seller isn't so he decides there aren't any good games period and calls anyone who disagrees cancer.
He's convinced he sees the light and everyone else are idiots. It's sad.
>>3114618
What's with these 2 second gifs?
>>3115242
Are you a sheep?
Does it matter which games are good?
What does "random and obscure" even mean? Not a best seller? That's 99% of games.
>>3115253
Please stop trying to strawman.
If your idea of critiquing a medium like video games is ignoring the defining games and to focus almost solely on the random and obscure than your system is very odd.
If I look at a medium and all the big names are trash that medium is trash. Doesn't mean there aren't good things but what represents that medium is not good.
>>3115265
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_PlayStation_3_video_games
What list are you looking at?
>>3115285
That one that matters.
Are you suggesting there's anything in that top 10 that isn't total shit?
>>3114579
None at all. Im far more serious about the mechanical, and creative side of videogames now than I ever was when I was young. This outlook steers me to studying classic games.
>>3115265
>>3115242
I don't see how you're still not understanding this. You have the impression that games went to crap in 6th and 7th gen because all the sudden the top selling games didn't appeal to you at all.
But for me, I already felt that way during 5th gen when games like Crash and Spyro became really popular. This list >>3115075 of the top PS1 games doesn't have a single game I care about.
But if I were to say to you that because those top games didn't interest me, so I decided to ignore the entire PS1 library you would call me an idiot because there are way more games for the system than just those top sellers I don't like. And you would be right to do so. I would be a fool to discount the entire PS1 library and 5th generation games in general just because I didn't like what the top selling games were.
But that is exactly what you are doing. You look at the top selling games, they don't interest you so you throw up your arms and decide there's nothing good. Or that anything good is "random and obscure".
There is nothing at all wrong with Call of Duty or Halo's popularity. It's just what's popular now. You can choose to use that as an excuse to ignore all new games and call them all crap, but I think you're a fool for doing so.
>>3114579
2
But at the moment the board seems to be more aimed towards bait threads and general shit posting
>>3114579
for what reason did you become so retarded that you thought there was actually the possibility for a definitive answer to anything you've said
>>3114579
I can't speak for other people on this board but my interest in this board is NOT motivated by pure nostalgia. My interest in "retro" games is 90% pragmatic: I am unwilling to spend money on the latest videogames and systems, when there is a huge back catalogue of old 16 and 32-bit titles available for free online, which I can play via emulation. Yes, I emulate. I do it for entertainment, and even if I'd never played 16 or 32-bit games *when they were contemporary* I'd still come to /vr/ to get recommendations.
Caveat: I did say 90%, the fact is there are some games that got engraved on my brain when I was a child and my mind was soft. I maintain an interest in those games which is over and above rational appreciation of their merits. For example, I will play Labyrinth Zone on Sonic 1 over and over again because the music and visuals take me back in time to when I was a carefree child. As an adult, if I'd never played it before, I'd probably toss the game aside after a single playthrough.
I just came here to discover and discuss games I might have missed from past gens.
When I'm nostalgic about my childhood, I talk to my brothers and/or childhood friends.
If you're gonna get personal, OP, you might need to pick up the phone instead of investing on fellow anons. Just saying.
>>3117278
>Caveat: I did say 90%, the fact is there are some games that got engraved on my brain when I was a child and my mind was soft. I maintain an interest in those games which is over and above rational appreciation of their merits. For example, I will play Labyrinth Zone on Sonic 1 over and over again because the music and visuals take me back in time to when I was a carefree child. As an adult, if I'd never played it before, I'd probably toss the game aside after a single playthrough.
I'm personally well aware of this kind of appreciation, and there's several games I still play once in awhile only because of this. But I rarely take that mindset to online discussions (to people who most likely don't share that same experience with me), because it's pointless, and leads to shitty "stop liking what I don't like, what I like is the best" kind of comments you see all too often around here. I mostly skip "childhood memories" threads.
Most of what I'm willing to discuss around here can be limited to "have you guys tried xxxyyy yet?" and "I liked xxxyyy, what can you recommend me that I haven't tried?"
>>3114579
I made this thread like a week ago. It's not as much as you might think
Most of the games I'm emulating are games I either never got to play during my childhood or never played very much. I am playing the fuck out of Gran Turismo 2 latley and I never touched anything other than the Arcade disc as a kid (I was 8 when it came out) so I am mostly playing it for the simulation options it offers and the fact that there really aren't any good Sim-Cade racing games for PC with comfy menus and a great career mode.
But I will admit there is something about the late 90s music, styling and cars that brings me back a bit.
>>3117313
>because it's pointless
it's not pointless if you derive enjoyment from other people's fond recollections of games you too once really liked
>>3117326
Without vr i would never have know about chrono trigger, fire emblem and most importantly castlevania. I started playing retro 10 years when i found a screencap of megaman
>>3116938
You love to put words in my mouth.
>But if I were to say to you that because those top games didn't interest me, so I decided to ignore the entire PS1 library you would call me an idiot because there are way more games for the system than just those top sellers I don't like.
No you just don’t like games or have some hate for the 5th generation.
If you don’t like a console’s defining games, then that console wasn’t for you. You finding games to enjoy outside of what the console sellers, hyped up games, etc doesn’t mean it’s good.
You can make anything look good if you ignore the primary features and focus on others.
>>3117529
>No you just don’t like games or have some hate for the 5th generation.
Now you're putting words in my mouth. I have no hate for 5th gen at all. It has tons and tons of games I love.
I would have been a complete idiot to discount the entire PS1 library of games because I didn't like some of it's "defining games".
>>3117529
Holy shit, you're hopeless.
>>3117537
Because I said you had to like all them. Oh hey wait a minute. Another Strawman!
>>3114654
/vr/'s retro rule should be 18 years of age or older so new old games can be discussed every year
>>3117543
>Because I said you had to like all them.
What?? Where did I say that? Are you even reading my posts?
I said that I would have been a fool to ignore the PS1 library of games because I don't like any of the ones on this >>3115075 list.
Just because I didn't like all the big selling, console defining games didn't mean there weren't a ton of games I did like. It would have been really stupid of me to ignore all those great games, just because I don't care about Crash Bandicoot or GT.
>>3117553
>I would have been a complete idiot to discount the entire PS1 library of games because I didn't like some of it's "defining games".
>>3117549
I support this.
>>3117529
>If you don’t like a console’s defining games, then that console wasn’t for you.
This is everything that's wrong with gamers distilled into one sentence. Holy shit, get a grip dude.
>>3117559
Okay... now you've lost me. Your problem is seriously that I didn't like every popular game on the system?
Is that why said you think I hate 5th gen?
>>3117569
I think you can't read or are doing mental gymnastics at this point.
>>3117561
Stalin was a pretty great dude if you ignore the whole gutting jews and throwing them in the river. Just focus on his loves for dogs!
Stop putting a hugbox around shit. The defining games are what games are.
Cancer like you that ignores problems is what the issue is. Used to be a shit game was shit. Now it's praised.
>>3117573
>I think you can't read or are doing mental gymnastics at this point.
Honestly, seriously I am trying to understand what you're talking about. I look at this list of top selling games for PS1 >>3115075 None of those are games that I personally care about playing.
However, that's only a tiny portion of the PS1 library and there are many, many other games on the system that I do like.
So when I see a statement like this
>If you don’t like a console’s defining games, then that console wasn’t for you.
I take real issue with it. Because even though I don't like many of it's defining games, I like many many games on the system.
>>3117579
Maybe you're just a proto hipster if you've been hating mainstream for that long.
Can't think of any other conclusion if none of the top 10 games on PS1 interest you in no way.
>>3117585
I talk about retro games and your underageb& ass tells me to go back to /v/.
Fuck of.
>>3117590
Spewing memes as an argument is something an underage does. You can fuck off.
>>3117595
>memes
Those terms are far older than 4chan, champ.
This is a 18+ board.
>>3117583
I will admit, my tastes tend to be a little odd. But I never hate something because it's popular. I love when something I like is really popular.
Metal Gear Solid and Tomb Raider were sure popular as heck and they're a couple of my favorite games on the system. They're just not on that list, which is literally Forgger, Crash and GT.
I love games, I've been playing games practically my whole life. Every single system that has ever come out has had games I liked and games I didn't. I just try to focus on the games I like and not worry about the ones I don't.
>>3117602
Fat chance that you were using them in daily conversation before 4chan.
>>3117609
I bet he was calling kids cancerous faggots when he was in kindergarten. He just seems like that kind of guy.
>>3117607
Why are you focusing only on the top5? I never said you have to like the top 5. I used the top 10 as an example. A defining game doesn't have to be a top 5 selling one.
Don't go autistic and put absolutes on a term like defining.
>>3117609
>>3117612
Man great argument. Not something I would see on /v/ ever. Some dumb kids getting butthurt someone doesn't like their shit modern games.
That's ok kids. Sure the new CoD is coming out soon.
>>3117615
>Why are you focusing only on the top5?
Because that's all that was in that image. I didn't bother to go look what the other games on the list are. I don't really care, and consider it kind of beside the point.
Which is that I don't care about what is or isn't in the top 10 in general ever.
My point from the start was that even though I didn't particularly like any of the games here >>3115075 every one of the systems still had many other games that I did like. That has been the case with me for almost every system ever.
>>3117621
>Because that's all that was in that image. I didn't bother to go look what the other games on the list are. I don't really care, and consider it kind of beside the point.
So you make an argument against mine without even understanding what you're arguing.
Yep you're retarded.
>>3117615
>A defining game doesn't have to be a top 5 selling one.
To clarify, I don't care what's defining or if it interest me. It usually doesn't.
If a console has five games I can't play elsewhere and know I'll regret not playing, then I get it. Doing that I've never been unhappy with a console purchase so far. Every one that I've bought has satisfied me.
>>3117615
Someone posted the top 30 ps3 sales yesterday and you supposedly hate all of them.
>>3117627
I was never not referring to the games in that specific image. Go back and look at every post if you like. You're the one bringing top 10's into this.
And like I say, it doesn't even matter. That's my point. I don't care what the top 10 or defining games are. I couldn't care less that Crash and Spyro which I hate were defining games for the PS1 and I couldn't care less that Halo and CoD were defining games for the 360.
All I care is that each system had games I liked. I like games.
Period.
Now I'm going home to play some.
>>3116938
Not those guys, but for me it's exactly because I like "random and obscure games" that I think gaming went downhill during the 7th gen, and to a lesser extent the 6th.
The PS1 and PS2 eras had a countless amount of smaller, mid-tier games like Valkyrie Profile 1-2, Star Ocean 2-3, Rez, Intelligent Qube, Breath of Fire 3-4-5, Steambot Chronicles, Crazy Taxi, Jet Set Radio, Gunvalkyrie, Klonoa, Alundra, Thief 1-2, Vib Ribbon, Mischief Makers, Guardian Heroes... Literally hundreds of worthwhile, memorable games that were made because the economy and market could support them.
Then what happened over the years? Rising budgets and consumer expectations meant you couldn't fund those games because they were too expensive to make in HD, and consumers wouldn't buy them because they wanted something that looked as good as Gears of War. The global recession happened in 07-08 and killed the economy. 7th gen consoles killed the Japanese market because the PS3 cost a fortune to buy and was hard to develop for, the Wii was a waggle machine that core gamers didn't to buy games for, and the 360 was just unwanted over there, so it hurt the console market, a lot of those companies shifted to mobile. The constant growth of budgets killed the mid-sized development scene so you were stuck with huge AAA games for the mass-market, or small unprofessional indie games made by 2 guys in their basement, with only a few decent mid-tier releases like Vanquish and Resonance of Fate slipping through the cracks.
I could go on, but realize that a lot of people who dislike modern games are just informed or more informed than you. I think old systems delivered better well-known games, as well as better lesser-known games. You had stuff like Metal Gear Solid, Starcraft, Half-Life, Devil May cry, OoT, Quake or Silent Hill 2 topping the charts instead of the same generic shooters and open-world games. And yes, something being popular can be a problem, since it dictates the market
>>3117630
I can throw a filter of the following and clear that whole list. At least almost all of it.
In order of most cancerous/shit
1. Behind an online Paywall
2. Broken day 1 and needs patch
3. DLC/Season pass
So yes that list is one giant pile of shit.
Think you're on the wrong board.
>>3117638
I gotta leave for home, but this is actually why I liked XBLA and DS/3DS Eshops so much. It was a space for small games again and had some really cool little gems in it. If anything I think 5th gen was a bit of a dark period, that got better with 6th and then 7th. But I know almost no one agrees and I'm fine with that.
>>3117646
>1. Behind an online Paywall
Online servers costs money. The cost is negligible unless you're super poor in which case why are you into video games in the first place?
2. Broken day 1 and needs patch
Doesn't matter after day 2
3. DLC/Season pass
DLC can be good. And ignored if bad.
You are such a baby about this stuff.
>>3117660
Some people care about making the game industry better.
Others like yourself thrive in the cancer.
I rarely play games I'm nostalgic about because I've already played them to death.
Retrogaming for me isn't about collecting shit or trying to relive my childhood. Its about finding new experiences, especially ones that are rare or completely gone in modern gaming.
>>3117646
So you haven't actually played them.
Got it.
>>3117694
Played a few of the ports on PC. Were trash.
>>3117665
I care very much about the industry getting better. We just have very different opinions of what better is. All three points you repeat over are ridiculous to me.
>1. Behind an online Paywall
Again, running servers costs money If you want good reliable and well maintained online servers for games, it's natural it's going to cost something. And really, the price for it is minimal compared to games and hardware. Even with all that, gaming is one of the least expensive of all my hobbies.
And remember, that only matters at all if you want to play online games. Six of the top 10 games here >>3117630 are entirely or mostly single player. There are still tons of single player games that don't need online if that's not what you're interested in.
>2. Broken day 1 and needs patch
Patching is good. There are a lot of retro games that could have done with a patch. It's been this way with PC games for a long long time. I am willing to deal with a rough first week of release if in the end it leads to a better product, which I usually feel it does. Especially in competitive games like fighters.
>3. DLC/Season pass
DLC comes in three forms, all are potentially good and easily ignored when not.
Type 1: Free DLC in the form of extra content and quests is in a number of games. Monster Hunter is a great example of one that gets tons. (MH also has free online btw) Anyone has a problem with that is a fool.
Type 2: Smaller extras from cosmetic things like fancy hats to new characters in fighting games. All of this is easily ignored if you don't want it, but adds the option for people who do. With fighters is extra good because even if you don't buy extra DLC characters you can still play against them online. So it turns it into Type 1 free DLC.
Type 3: DLC used as expansion packs. It's a cheaper and more direct way to add content to games than in the days of full on expansion packs. I fully support DLC like that.
>>3119452
>Again, running servers costs money If you want good reliable and well maintained online servers for games
And yet it's expected to be free on PC.
This is just corporate apologism. Companies always have to spend money to make more money. Online gaming was always gonna become a huge thing, and Sony and Microsoft would've had to offer it if they wanted to compete in the marketplace without losing most of their playerbase to PCs/mobile. They would've offered free online if everyone had rejected the idea of paying for it (like they rejected the always-online policy of the Xbone); they would've done it so people would still buy their system for the online functionality, but the 360 came out at the right time and people were willing to pay for it, and now it's expected.
Would you also be fine with Steam demanding a monthly $10 fee to use their service? After all, building an infrastructure and running servers costs money. Yet somehow they manage to provide that just fine for free by making back that money in other ways. Microsoft tried to do the same thing on PC with GFWL, and they were promptly rejected. But people like you would say it's fine if instead they had won.
>that only matters at all if you want to play online games
That's getting less and less true with time, with games like the new Deus Ex and Hitman having online functionalities. It's actively harming game design, because they want to force you to use online DRM and pay online fees by implementing online features that shouldn't be needed.
>Patching is good
The problem is that this new system incentivizes developers to be lazy and ship out games before they're finished.
When that King's Quest game for PC (5? 6?) came out and was broken, it was a big deal. Now it's basically a common occurence. When publishers released console games, they had to make sure they worked properly. This sort of rigorous testing improved quality control and design.
>>3119768
(cont.)
Now it doesn't matter, PC, consoles... just let your buyers do your job for you and ship out a product that only half-works, and if you're nice you might fix it. This is now normalized, and consumers have accepted it, which isn't a good thing.
Also consider that a lot of the minor imperfections in old games are part of what made them good. Legendary things like bunny-hopping in Quake probably wouldn't exist if id could've patched them out instantly. Great games like Super Smash Bros. Melee wouldn't be so popular even today if Nintendo could've just removed all the intricacies that make it a unique, dynamic fighter unlike the later Smash games. Games like Super Metroid or Super Mario 64 where you have tons of shortcuts and technical tricks you can do wouldn't be so fun to replay and speedrun if every little "unintended" thing was removed after release.
>easily ignored when not.
You can't ignore the fact that they might've cut that content out of the game to sell it to you separately.
When you sold a single console game, you had to fill it with content so people would be satified with it, add unlockables and extra content so the player can get a lot of value out of it, and then he would respect your brand and buy the sequel or your other products.
With DLC, you can just put out your base game, and sell all that content later for more money. Why put a bunch of nice cosmetics and extra content in your game if you can sell it separately and people like you will defend them for it?
Patching and DLC aren't inherently bad, but once they're normalized, every company abuses it and what you get is every game coming out broken on release, and every game filled with microtransactions and piece-meal DLC, a lot of that content being something that would've been included in your game for free 15 years ago, or that they would've included in a new game instead of getting you to buy a single game and trying to milk you and that one game as much as possible
>>3119768
> but the 360 came out at the right time and people were willing to pay for it
Interestingly it was the 360's robust online that made me get it over the PS3. It was more than just the online, the built in voice chat was very appealing because I played with many of my friends that way.
>Would you also be fine with Steam demanding a monthly $10 fee to use their service?
10 dollars a month is a little steep, that's twice the price of Xbox gold. I wouldn't be shocked or horrified at paying something if I thought the service warranted it though. Even 10 dollars isn't that much given the cost of living. My lunch was just 18 dollars and it was shitty. Life is pricey. Sucks sometimes, but it is what it is.
Also important note, having Xbox gold gives two games "free" every month. 5 bucks for two games every month is a not bad deal on it's own, but that's just the bonus.
> the new Deus Ex and Hitman having online functionalities
But you don't necessarily need a subscription just to access online content. I haven't played those games so I can't say specifically, but in general you only need a gold/premium account to play online vs other people. Everything else can be done without one.
>The problem is that this new system incentivizes developers to be lazy and ship out games before they're finished.
While this is partially true, I've been burned on games I thought I would like so many times that I never ever buy day one anyways. So if something has a rocky launch it doesn't really matter. If it's good once they get it running properly is all I care about.
And I play a lot of fighters which often need balance patches once a large player base has been going at it for a while. There's only so much that the small teams of play testers can work out.
Would I like it if games were always released perfectly day 1? Of course. But that's rarely practical. All I want in the end is a good game.
>>3119452
>running servers costs money
Back in the olde days we used to have dedicated servers included with a game, as well as a peer-to-peer option. Centralized servers not only cost money to maintain, but they are also a single point of failure and will disappear in time. Keep in mind what board you're on. People here play 20-30 year old games at least. No publisher is gonna maintain their infrastructure that long. Worse even, centralized servers are a common mechanism to force people on the next version or iteration of a game, even if players might not have any reason otherwise.
>Patching is good
Banana software. The ability to patch shifts the QA from in-house to the customer. On top of that, it offers the opportunity for the publisher to not bother building a game to completition. They release a half-arsed unfinished version on a deadline, then maybe bother fixing it, if they see a profit motive. If they don't, the game is perpetually unpatched AND in a worse state than if it was unpatchable to begin with.
>DLC comes in three forms
No it doesn't
>all are potentially good and easily ignored when not
That is highly subjective. It also dismisses fundamental aspects of DLC based development, where games are intentionally developed in an incomplete state, in order to bail out of the dlc process at any moment to cut their losses. The result is a potentially perpetually unfinished game. Disregarding that problem, DLC also turns any game into an advertising platform, because additional purchases are part of the whole intention. Compare to a /vr/ game, where the game itself is just a self contained product. It may have had previous games, and even reference them, but it's much riskier, if not impossible to reference future developments. One more issue with DLC (the list is not exhaustive) is that by design it relies on a central online infrastructure. Not central to the platform it's on, but central to the game. Eventually that infrastructure will go down as well.
>>3119768
>The problem is that this new system incentivizes developers to be lazy and ship out games before they're finished.
As a side remark, that's not /vr/ material: MS used to charge "outrageous" fees for patching on XBLA. One indie developer loudly complained, and MS had to back down. I still believe these fees are a good thing, as they simply increase the cost of patching to the point that it's more valuable to do thorough in-house QA. Sadly the whiners won, the fee got canned, and we're getting more unfinished games.
>>3119773
>You can't ignore the fact that they might've cut that content out of the game to sell it to you separately.
Sure, but it's even more likely the content never would have been made in the first place. And the reality is that almost no DLC is important in the way you're implying it is. Even games with DLC still have lots of unlockables and extra content.
Now sure, sometimes companies do really shitty DLC, but that often backfires on them. No one wanted to pay for horse armor and their efforts were largely wasted.
If some people trying to pull stupid shit like that is the balance to games like Monster Hunter getting new quests added for free or fighting games getting new characters added based on fan feedback, then I'm happy with it.
>>3119786
>All I want in the end is a good game
The ability to patch does not encourage that. In a patching friendly environment it's much more economic to skip even basic play-testing, and only fix key bugs while people buy it and you don't have your successor out. There's a very realistic chance you will initially end up with a worse game, and another chance that this worse game will never reach the status of a good game, if it's abandoned early enough. The only things you get from a patching friendly environment is more and less quality releases, please a heap of overhead for "maintenance", something console players originally didn't have to bother with, and that used to bring a lot of players to consoles, willing to accept more locked down hardware, for having to not do PC chores. The chores are back, so what little is there to stay?
>>3119798
>it's even more likely the content never would have been made in the first place
Questionable assumption. If you plan from day 1 to do DLC, you let the dev team develop a "reasonable" scope of features and assets, and then let marketing shift the core|dlc divider around until you reach a balance of material people would buy, for the price you want to ask. The rest gets moved into DLC or preorder bonuses, to boost sales
>almost no DLC is important in the way you're implying it is
fun issue: almost no content is as "important" in the way you think it is. Modern games are designed to be modular, for smooth DLC integration. Missions, cutscenes, regions, minigames, you name it. Even the actual game itself is made of these modules, and it's just a matter of how many of them are in there.
>that often backfires on them
the entertainment industry is like a drug habit. People openly loathe EA or Ubi, and then turn around and buy their next offer. The "backfiring" is temporal public outrage, that has little impact on actual sales.
>>3119805
It's not that I think it's a perfect set up, but there are a lot of old games I thought could have done with tweaks after release.
It's the same with paying for online or DLC. Sure DLC isn't always good, but when I like it I'm happy it's there. There have been a number of games where I've really liked the DLC content.
The modern game industry isn't perfect, but the old game industry wasn't perfect either. There's always some bullshit hoops to jump through to play the games I want. But so long as there are games I enjoy then I'm willing to jump through them.
And honestly, I think many of the hoops are less annoying now than they were in the 80s or 90's. But maybe that's partially age.
>>3119809
>If you plan from day 1 to do DLC
And if you don't plan from day 1 to do DLC then the scope of your game in the end is probably smaller.
> Modern games are designed to be modular, for smooth DLC integration. Missions, cutscenes, regions, minigames
Sure a game designed to have DLC will be planned to have it integrate. I don't get the point of that. But it's usually extra missions. I can't really think of any DLC mini games or cutscenes.
>>3119813
>could have done with tweaks after release
tweaks, indeed. Compare with the present, where a non trivial amount of games needs fixes for game breaking bugs and "glitches" that would have embarrassed old devs.
>when I like it I'm happy it's there
The majority of the time I don't like it, so the happy moments are of very little value. Denying the devs "comforts" like DLC or patching is a bit of a necessary evil, because these features are so prone to abuse.
>the old game industry wasn't perfect either
indeed, but many of the issues they dealt with kept them from fucking up even more.
>so long as there are games I enjoy then I'm willing to jump through them
I would like to say the same, but I'm not aware of any AAA game younger than 2010 or so, that I played. The development in the gaming industry has alienated me. It's not a big problem, because the backlog of decades of gaming is vast and practically unlimited. But knowing that virtually everything released for the masses nowadays is practically useless, is saddening. Fortunately independent development could pick up and recover some of what the industry messed up
>many of the hoops are less annoying now than they were in the 80s or 90's. But maybe that's partially age
See you in 20 years, when your 360 or PS3 will have a bloody hard time drawing patches from the gone online servers, lagging insanely because the dev got lazy and was checking the achievement server in the same thread. Running an emulator is childs play compared to having to emulate the whole backhaul AND obtain all the patches from questionable sources.
>>3119825
>And if you don't plan from day 1 to do DLC
What's the incentive to NOT do it nowadays? It's a pretty safe bet to keep an elastic scope (the ability to add or cut features depending on how well the development goes) and maintain profit.
>>3119826
>I would like to say the same, but I'm not aware of any AAA game younger than 2010 or so, that I played.
>But knowing that virtually everything released for the masses nowadays is practically useless, is saddening.
I think this is one of our key differences. It's been a long, long time since I expected to like the games that were being made for the masses. Some of the ones I like are popular, but those tend to be rarer and I don't care if they're popular enough.
One of the things I think is so great about the game industry these days is the overwhelming amount and variety of the games being made.
It's not just that the AAA games don't really interest me, I just plain don't have time for most of them between all the other stuff there is. Heck I can barely play through the decent 7day roguelikes each year anymore, let alone really sink my teeth into some of the full releases.
>>3119841
>It's been a long, long time since I expected to like the games that were being made for the masses
I don't know about you, but isn't that statement there saying the industry is badly broken? I do not expect good games from the industry either, but you seem to say that's the expect or normal state.
>One of the things I think is so great about the game industry these days is the overwhelming amount and variety of the games being made.
Guess we mean different things. To me the industry is the publishers and developers doing games for plain profit. They're the most simple and flashiest games you can possibly produce, have tons of marketing and guaranteed DLC.
Aside from that industry though, there's a huge enthusiast scene, and some of the thing they do are even profitable, which is a bonus. That's not the industry though, not to me, anyway. Some of them do games that look a lot like the industry junk, because they don't know any better, but a lot of it is pure enthusiasm for games, experimentation and creativity. That's the old hobbyist scene that manages to make a living now, due to their love for games, reduced development and distribution costs.
>>3119851
>I don't know about you, but isn't that statement there saying the industry is badly broken?
No, I think it's exactly the opposite. It's not that the Call of Dutys, Halos and Crash Bandicoots weren't and aren't being enjoyed by many people. Tons of people love those games, I'm just not one of them.
That I can love video games, but not necessarily the AAA most popular ones and still have a constant supply of ones I want to play is great in my eyes. It means the game industry has a lot of variety.
And I think it has more variety now than ever. When I met my now wife she hadn't played anything since Goldeneye and had the impression that's what most games were like and they weren't for her.
Then I showed her Peggle and now she plays something or other for a bit almost every day. They're mostly not the kinds of games I play, but that's what I like so much. There's something for just about everyone. She can kick my ass at Puzzle Fighter and Puyo Puyo though which is a little embarrassing.
>That's not the industry though, not to me, anyway.
> That's the old hobbyist scene that manages to make a living now, due to their love for games, reduced development and distribution costs.
That's fair I guess. I see them both as parts of the industry.
>>3119869
>and still have a constant supply of ones I want to play is great in my eyes
that's despite the industry, not because of it.
>It means the game industry has a lot of variety.
It means they haven't figured out yet how to screw up these developers, and little need to, as the genres and games they hijacked pay well enough.
>Peggle
look at current Peggle variants and weep. That kind of game is strongly focused on micro transactions
>There's something for just about everyone
disagreed. You can get tons of shallow crap, but nothing of substance, because the small devs can't afford it, and the big devs can't be bothered
>>3119869
>There's something for just about everyone. She can kick my ass at Puzzle Fighter and Puyo Puyo though which is a little embarrassing.
I like how you say there's something for just about everyone only NOW, then in the next sentence you name 20 year-old games that she likes.
She also would've probably enjoyed Panel de Pon, or Tetris, or all those arcade games like Bubble Bobble and Uo Poko which came out eons ago.
>>3119884
(cont.)
Also forgot to add... games like Peggle were better when they were free flash games on sites like Newgrounds, instead of skinner boxes engineered by businessmen and psychologists on 3-inch screens, filled with microtransactions to exploit kids and people with addictive personalities with lots on money.
>>3119880
>that's despite the industry, not because of it.
I consider anyone who makes games as part of the industry, so I find it really hard to agree with that since they're the ones giving me so many games I like.
>look at current Peggle variants and weep.
I don't weep, I just don't play them. Peggle, Nights and 2 were plenty of that kind of game. Now there's other stuff to play.
>You can get tons of shallow crap, but nothing of substance
I disagree with this as well. To name just a couple of favorites, Monster Hunter, Etrian Odyssey, fighting games and roguelikes in general, all have a ton of substance. Even smaller games like this seemingly cute and simple little game can have a lot to them. It's actually a maddeningly difficult puzzle platformer.
>>3119884
Yeah she likes panel de pon as well, and Dr Mario but not so much Tetris for whatever reason. I mentioned those games because they were retro though. Most of the games she plays are other weird puzzle things, tower defense, Pop Cap, hidden object and Animal Crossing. Tons of Animal Crossing.
>>3119891
>I consider anyone who makes games as part of the industry
Yeah, we disagree on a fundamental level here. I would happily like to see the gaming industry end up in total destruction, as it creates nothing of value any longer. You have broadened the term of "industry" so far as to make it meaningless.
>Etrian Odyssey
I see you mentioned an unpatchable offline game, wonder why
>>3119898
>You have broadened the term of "industry" so far as to make it meaningless.
I think you've shrunk it to the point of meaninglessness. I don't know how you can consider a game developer not part of the industry just because they're small, but whatever.
>I see you mentioned an unpatchable offline game, wonder why
I too am honestly curious what exactly you're wondering about that. What does it imply to you?
Also take note it's sandwiched between Monster Hunter which is an excellent example of a game with both free online and free DLC. And fighters which are one of the genres that have benefited the most from modern online play and post-release patching.
>>3119915
>just because they're small
strawman much?
>whatever
indeed
>What does it imply to you?
You read the conversation?
>Monster Hunter which is an excellent example of a game with both free online
unplayable to me, thanks to the online connection
Can't comment on the fighters, as it's not my kind of game, in part because of the heavy reliance on online play and the excessive tweaking
>>3119921
>strawman much?
How is that a strawman?
>You read the conversation?
Yup, and lost. You cherry picked one game and then "wondered why" I mentioned it. Were you just shocked I mentioned a single player game or something?
>unplayable to me, thanks to the online connection
You realize online is *optional* though, right? I love that I get get together with my friends and hunt, but probably 95% of the time I've spent playing Monster Hunter is single player.
>Can't comment on the fighters, as it's not my kind of game, in part because of the heavy reliance on online play and the excessive tweaking
Online play for them is great in my opinion. It essentially re-invigorated the genre when net code and online connections got good enough to handle it. Finally we could play anyone around the world instead of just friends and who we knew at local get togethers.
And I mentioned it before, but the tweaking they can do post release is fantastic. Fighting games are all about careful balance and being able to tweak them once the game is out there being played by tens of thousands of people is very helpful for them in my opinion.
>>3119898
Maybe you should realize that any game with online interaction has to be dumbed down for Americans to keep their anger in check.
>>3119935
>How is that a strawman?
Know why I called them enthusiasts and formerly hobbyist devs? Because size is secondary
>>3119943
Ahh okay then I'll revise. I don't know how you can consider a game developer not part of the industry just because they're small, enthusiasts and/or formerly hobbyists, but whatever.
I consider anyone who releases a game for sale or profit (free to play) as being part of the overall games industry.
>>3119950
>just because they're small
I don't
>enthusiasts and/or formerly hobbyists
different motivation
>whatever
off yourself, shit stain, seriously. I thought you actually had a worthwhile stance, even if we disagreed, but you're yet another random shit poster, of less value than the industry you're fellating
>>3119959
Okay so small doesn't matter, I'm happy to ignore that as well.
But I don't think someone being a former hobbyist makes them not part of the industry once they start selling games.
If they're making games purely as a hobby and releasing them as freeware then I fully agree. But once they are trying to make a profit from them then they're part of the industry. At least in my opinion.
>whatever
>off yourself, shit stain, seriously.
I think you took my "whatever" out of context. I wasn't really blowing you off, it was more an acknowledgement that I didn't think this was a point we were going to agree on and I don't see it as all that worth fighting over.
If you don't consider enthusiasts and former hobbyists as part of the industry, I don't really agree but that's fine with me. So "whatever"
>>3119968
Why are Aussies always so pissed off about everything?
>>3120012
It's a former prison colony populated by proud alcoholics. Take a wild guess.
>>3114579
Well, considering that anything pre-NES is almost never discussed, I'd say a lot.
Like, you will almost never find e.g. Atari 2600 or ZX Spectrum games discussed here.
>>3114579
I have a tiny bit for a few games here and there but try to keep it in check. There's really nothing good about nostalgia.
Nostalgia not joy. Nostalgia is the delusion that things were better before and everything now is worse. Every impulse towards that is false.
I like retro games because some of them are just really fucking good.
>>3120097
I did an Intellivision thread once around here. But I do see your point though.
>>3114654
I can't belive we have consolewar threads on /vr/, /v/ermin needs to be removed.
