What is your favourite part about retro gaming?
Having fun and not being hand-held between cinematic set pieces.
they're games
>>3310509
this tbqh famicom
the false sense of superiority I get from being better than people who only play modern games
The ease of access to pretty much any game you can think of.. at least in terms of anything pre-Saturn/PS1
Plus the fact that I can just open the game and start playing. None of this bullshit like updates, DLC, patches and shit like that
>>3310553
i know you're probably joking but this is actually where most of the enjoyment comes from
>>3310464
>load times
>retro
from what i hear, load times sounds more modern
>>3310464
Using genuine hardware.
>>3310574
and...
How games were simple. I play a new game now and its so fucking big. Half the time I dont know where Im going. Takes like 50 hours minimum to beat it.
I might be derided for this, but the lack of cutscenes and drawn-out plot developments. With newer games (even dating back to the fifth generation with PS1) it seems like there's an FMV or QTE sequence every 5 minutes in.
I can appreciate good writing, but I don't think detailed characters or settings are necessarily incompatible with games that feature a more spartan storytelling approach. e.g. King's Field has a lot of interesting lore to go along with it, but none of that has to be hashed out during the course of exploring the game world before the game can hold my interest at all. I'm quite comfortable with being dropped off in the middle of nowhere and told to pursue the bad guy at my leisure.
>>3310591
What the fuck is that thing? Never heard of it, is it new?
>>3310464
Making the perfect setup; best possible video, audio on original hardware and then not ever using it.
>>3310596
But people say modern games are too short.
>>3310596
Also modern games will never leave you stranded whereas old games were cryptic as hell.
>>3310464
I like the a e s t h e t i c of old graphics, and the typically more challenging gameplay
modern games try too hard to appeal to mass audiences, resulting in me feeling disinterested in them in the same way I'm disinterested in hollywood blockbusters
>>3310464
it's free
>>3310464
Because older games take a lot less time for me to go in blind and figure out if they're shit or not.
>>3311163
>modern games try too hard to appeal to mass audiences
That really isn't a good enough abstraction. If mass appeal had games that were like retro games you'd be a shitbag to dislike them. You might be a shitbag right now if that's the only reason you dislike modern games instead of the fact that they generally have bad gameplay and design choices as well as half assed in technical production.
Mainstream loves flash over substance and so that's how mainstream games are developed, with flash over substance.
Though ironically, they're often shoehorning that flash in as well so you not only don't have gameplay but the flash is poorly done with things like post processed based reflections instead of actual reflections, less cost, but can actually have a gameplay benefit when it's real.
![The-Legend-of-Zelda-Breath-of-the-Wild[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/R3tufC6.jpg "The-Legend-of-Zelda-Breath-of-the-Wild[1].jpg")
- I can play them in my cheap computer
- It is more likely to find try gems in a timespan of decades than just restricting yourself to the last 5 years.
- Old games have a different flavor that you cannot experience with new games.
- Every new generation of consoles focuses more on the realism part than the gameplay. I don't care if the game is 2D / 3D as long as it offers me a 'game'. I suppose both kind of games (gameplay focused and realism focused) are ok, but i have my preferences.
>>3311185
One thing that people often forgets is that, as social as we are, we like to be part of the things that are going on. Old games are a thing people enjoy from time to time, but new games gets a lot of attention just for the fact that they are a novelty, which will attract more people and produce fresh discussions, see >>>/v/342415509 noone here discusses a zelda game the way it gets discussed if it were a new thing.
Old games are like a different medium. Once voice acting and cut scenes and QTEs became the norm, the medium changed. I tend to prefer the older version.
They're good
I get a lot of enjoyment from pushing plastic buttons to manipulate light and sound emitting from a television.
>>3310509
>They are games
It makes me remember my childhood and all the times I spent with my father playing together.
RIP Dad you wouldn't like modern games anyway. ;_;
>>3310464
Same favorite thing about games in general, I guess. I know a lot of people on this board have a hateboner against modern gaming, but retro games only seem so much better because we've forgotten about all the shitty games and remembered all the good ones.
I see people in this thread talking about how retro games are pure games and modern games are qtes and cutscenes, but it's like people forget about retro games that focused on story and ignore modern games that focus more on gameplay.
mario
>>3310613
>drawn-out plot developments
I personally don't have problem with this but modern gaming industry is hiring the wrong people to write scripts for video games and there is no way around it.
Simplicity and one aspect is enough to make a game feel like adventure there is no need for double twists and edgy shit nobody wants or belongs in a story.
The presentation. I love games that look, sound and play like games and I can't stand the modern Hollywood style generic orchestral music and boring graphics or the shitty busy overdesigned and edgy western character designs (like the Killer Instinct and Mortal Kombat ones). Even the sound efects from modern games turn me off with the annoying sounds of little rocks falling and concrete breaking.
>>3310464
Lack of DRM, ease of emulation, and sometimes just how simple they are.
I play recent games just as well, but sometimes I need to just run away from the shitty parts of gaming for a while.
>>3311185
>you're a shitbag for hating modern games for trying too hard to appeal to mass audiences
>proceeds to list all the shitty ways they try to appeal to mass audiences
I really don't know where you were going with this
How they'll never be shit. How no matter what direction video games take in the future that retro games will always be there, glowing in the dark.
challenge
>>3311479
>scripts
>video games
>>3311868
You have to have at least basic premise if nothing else.
Older games feel like substantial experiences.
I played System Shock 1 for the first time recently and I was really engaged in the story and the setting. I came out of that game feeling like I had gotten to the end of a great journey.
It's a quality most modern games just don't have.
>>3310464
Showing all my friends online that I did.
Playin with friends in the same room, challenge, no shit stories plagued by the cultural Marxism that has invaded the modern video game industry. Good art design, good sound design. And nostalgia
>>3311934
that's in part because modern game devs and players alike think a narrative needs to be told in cutscenes. You can see that in posts like >>3310613. What a lot of the old games manage though is engage the player. Instead of telling what's going on, they're letting the player act, and experience the events on their own. That creates a tighter, I hate me for using that word, but, "immersion" than any advanced graphics. It feels much more immediate to not just be a part of the unfolding narrative, but to seemingly shape and steer it.
It does not matter how linear or rigid the narrative is, the game is designed in such a way that the player is moving it forward, instead of them player filler between movies. It may not be immediately obvious that that's the case, but you can find it in quite a few games, especially action. The player is restricted to generic actions, while the special actions, the ones that matter, that move and shape the narrative, are performed by actors in a cutscene. That is a bad gaming narrative. It destroys player involvement.
A few rare excellent games even give a sense of freedom through a simple trick: the game convinces the player that they want to go in a certain direction. They're railroaded, hard, the story's as linear as it can be, but it doesn't matter, because they're being railroaded in the direction they want to go. It's a very fundamental art in game narratives, but a lost one. Modern designers treat the narrative in a game like a book. They got a story, they want to tell it, so they tell it. Sprinkle a bit of filler in between, for the player, and that's it. It's all meaningless though, if they don't pick up the player, and convince them they want to do it. Unlike a book, the player has, or likes to have, some amount of control. When reading a book, or watching a movie, they know right from the start, that they're passive. They may reflect on the actions of the actors, but they won't identify, because there's no need to.
>>3311953
>They may reflect on the actions of the actors, but they won't identify, because there's no need to.
while in a game, the player needs to be convinced, needs to have an inner desire to perform the actions presented in the game, to move the narrative forward.
Think of it as a choose your own adventure book, where at the end of each page there's a section that offers one choice leading to the next page, and the other choice leading ... you know, it doesn't matter, because the reader will never choose it. That's how you do narrative in a game. Controlling the player, will giving plenty of illusion of control and agency
>>3311953
Having to "fill in" the universe using your own imagination engages you, as the player, and makes the experience deeper. As long as the designers did their part to set the scene, especially the artists, by giving you something interesting to get hooked on.
I don't care about the story someone who is forced to work as a video game writer has to tell, no offense. If its exceptionally good, I will actually pay attention and not skip, but this isn't something that happens every game. That's why I said "exceptionally".
>>3311970
>I don't care about the story someone who is forced to work as a video game writer has to tell
And you shouldn't. You should care about the story you're writing with your player actions.
The trick as a dev is to write a story in such a way, that it motivates your player actions, because then the narrative seems to follow your player's actions, and they're engaged.
>I will actually pay attention and not skip
This statement right there, it's super important. Because underneath that statement there lies a faint assumption that the player's actions and the story are two different things, often even things that are at odds. And that the story is interrupting the player. But that's not the case. A while back in another thread someone else mentioned Metroid, and although I have yet to finish it, from what I understand it's very fitting here. There are no cutscenes in there, there is nothing you could even skip, or not pay attention to. Yet the game has a very tight and dense narrative. It works, because it gives the player some agency, or at least pretends to. Sequence breaking aside, the writers (yes, writers) knew exactly what places to go in what order, how to scale the difficulty of locations, how to give the player clues and motivation to go somewhere. That is pure gaming narrative, writing, authoring. You just don't notice it as such, because it is supporting the game, instead of interrupting it. Your whole statement relies on narrative being something anti-game. We've experienced it so often, we take it for granted now. Lots of old games though, show that that's not necessarily the case. On a side note: part of why they do is constraints. When you don't have the cart space for cutscenes and excessive text, you don't do it. So you find other means to tell your story. The abundance of resources available to modern games, leads to lazy narratives.
>>3311949
>Cultural Marxism invaden muh gaems!
>>>/v/
>>>/pol/
One thing I can appreciate about modern games is that they're willing to take more risks with characterization and storytelling. It wasn't long ago that LGBT characters were censored in basically all forms of media. Now that attitudes toward that stuff have become more lax, it's not unusual that developers are willing to experiment with these themes more.
But unfortunately, so much of it comes off as shoehorned. The problem is that not all of these studios have decent writers to begin with, much less writers who are close to the subject matter. But let's not forget that localization in the retro days was spotty at best. What might otherwise be a well-written story gets maimed by poor translation, censorship policies and numerous other factors before it's allowed to be released overseas.
>>3312001
I have no problem with devs touching on themes of LGBT stuff , that's not what i meant by cultural Marxism ruining stories, but youre right this isnt /pol
>>3312001
shut up dweeb
>>3310464
It's the kind of games I grew up playing and still like.
I stopped caring about new stuff around mid 90's. I think that's when 3D basically took over everything.
Also they remind me of simpler times, and better computers (now they're too complicated and boring to really be fun).
I think Dunkey explains it best.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1qnIBLNOG0
>>3312001
>muh storytelling
>muh lgbt
Go read the perks of being a wallflower u little faggot
>>3312001
a lot of the representation feels shoehorned because it isn't prevalent enough to feel normal yet. also shitty writers
>>3310464
I play them to relish in history of the medium. I don't emulate, and hate people that do just because it's free and they're "bored." I'm passionate about the medium of games and absorb as many as I can, read as much about them as I can.
That being said, I do not hate modern games whatsoever. There are a million great games coming out constantly pushing things further and further like with Forza 6 or the new Uncharted or seeing Gran Turismo don e-sports as a new explorative avenue or even just seeing graphics improve further and further with animations increasing in fidelity and having such broad multiplayer integration in games like Battlefield with so many physics and chaos happening at once. It's really just fascinating to see things evolve over time. I've been around for awhile and it's been a wonder to see Pole Position become DriveClub
>>3312001
The fact that it bothers people tells you that it is shoehorned in by shitty writers. Like how the new Mafia is a black power fantasy where you kill Italians instead of enjoying moving up the ranks of the mafia before you get betrayed or somebody goes too far.
