/vr/ - Retro Games

this is retarded

>>7267564
No it’s a combination of software like DirectX and hardware like what year the video card came out.
It’s not just software based you mongoloid. A platform is more than just the software.
Does it run on pre 2000 hardware/software? Then it’s retro

No one cares, faggot.

>>7267610
>Does it run on pre 2000 hardware/software?
Hardware and software or hardware or software? Which hardware, the CPU, GPU, RAM? I can run 2007 hardware on 2001 software.
It gets too messy, the DirectX version makes more sense desu, or an earlier cutoff year for PC.

>>7267564
>many non-retro games such as Crysis, F.E.A.R, CoD 4, The Witcher, Mass Effect and BioShock
but those are retro

>>7267564
This is a surprisingly robust cutoff.
>>7267682
go back to /v/, faggot.

>>7267564
The cutoff should be a rolling date of 15 years old regardless of platform. So right now it should be 2006. Then next year 2007. Then next year 2008. And so on.

>>7267707
The problem is that games from 2008 look and play like today's games.
15 years difference now are very different from say, 1995-2010.

>>7267738
>WAAAAAAAAAAAH I HAVE TO TALK ABOUT GAMES OTHER THAN MY PIXELSHIT WAAAAAAHHH
Grow up.

>>7267760
you are right I apologize, but you shouldn't swear otherwise my mom would not let me go on the chans anymore.

>>7267564
No.

>>7267808
niggers

>>7267650
This board is going to SHIT.

>>7268069
That's the plan of people like OP. They don't like the change so they flood the board with meta discussion threads and whine constantly. If the board can't be exactly how they want, they'll ruin it for everyone else because they're selfish babies.

>>7268069
Its not, it was always shit. Troll zoomers, make better threads and be the change you wish to see.

>>7267564
lol

Why mods let threads like that keep on going ?
The rule states: "Retro gaming means platforms launched in 2001 and earlier, and official game titles for those platforms released no later than December 2007"

Lets digest it:
>Platforms launched in 2001 and earlier
obviously means a console and PC with hardware and operating system not later than 2001. You can say "A windows xp platform" but still requires hardware not later than 2001;
Its ultra mega retarded arguments saying: "a PC with a Geforce 8800 Ultra, Core2Quad Extreme, 2GB Ram DDR2 and 500GBHDD is a 2001 platform cuz it has a Windows XP OS!!" This is exactly what you and others like you appeal to when creating and defending those threads... again, ultra retarded.

>and "official" game titles for those platforms
AC1, COD4, Crysis, Gears..., are all 7th gen games not even remotely "officially" close of being developed and distributed for PCs or any consoles "launched in 2001 and earlier" (like the rules says). "BUT MUHH WINDOWS XP CAME IN 2001". Windows alone is not a platform. see: >>7266795

So jannies, why those threads not get deleted?

It is really, really stupid that Crisis is now retro on /vr/.

In my honest opinion they should limit PC games to no later than 2004. Why? Because the Xbox 360 was released the following year beginning the 7th console generation.

>>7268208
Makes no sense. Might as well limit discussion on n64 expansion pack games while you're at it. What about my gba back lit mod, is that allowed?

>Portal and CoD4 are okay
>DS and PSP aren't
2007 was a mistake
It should have been 2005 in black and white.

>>7267564
The cutoff should be anything for 6th gen consoles or PC games up to 2004. It's weird including games from 2005 because that was a whole different era of graphics.

>>7267760
There's a lot of irony in you telling him to grow up, but you're too stupid to realize it.

>>7268279
nigger

I think you should base the PC games on whether they had 7th gen console versions. All of the OP games were released on consoles, Fear and Crysis in particular were PC games that were ported later on. People tend to forget the dire straits the PC game market was in, and how PC ports absolutely depended on the whims of the publishers.

>>7268541
Quake 2 was released on Xbox 360 discs, is it retro?

>>7267564
>This removes many non-retro games such as Crysis, F.E.A.R, CoD 4, The Witcher, Mass Effect and BioShock.
Literally no one even talks about them, only as a joke once in month.
This only means PC is shit and no one cares about it.
This is console-board.

>>7268654
Theres always PC threads on the front page.

>>7267564
Something about the xbox 360 generation ticks me off, the games just look so ugly. I would consider midtown madness better looking than halo 3.

>>7267610
I think single core is the limit and agp for video cards so pentium 4 with the last agp video card in my opinion as well being able to run on windows 98. If it only works on xp its not retro.

>>7267564
Did you even play these games? I don't think so.
Every single one runs on Directx 9.0c
Way to sabotage your own argument.
A shitpost is worth next to nothing, if you don't have a leg to stand on.

what about valve and warband? their vidya support directx7. what if they support software rendering? there are mods being released for directx7 games :/

>>7268654
>This is console-board.

No it isn't you stupid fucking little child. Just because all you play and care about are console games it doesn't mean that's all the board is for. Stop your fucking trolling and grow up.

>>7267564
>>7267707
"Retro gaming" literally just means "pre-HD gaming". And that will never change.

>>7267564
Which retro game is this thread about?

>>7269120
Yes, it is.
Consoles had a lot better games.

The 2007 cutoff proves the mods are legitimately retarded

atari was retro when 5th gen released and no one talks about that crap. get over it.

>>7267564
Close, but it should just be the year of the hardware, because that's tied to the DirectX version anyway, and it should be 2001.
>>7267610
Yes.
>>7267674
It's not messy. Crysis needed Pixel Shader 2.0. The first PS2.0 GPUs came out in 2002. That means there were literally no PCs made in 2001 that could run Crysis. Even a PC ten times as powerful as the most powerful PC made in 2001, but with 2001 technology, couldn't run Crysis, because Crysis needed technology that was invented in 2002. Most of the games you mentioned are the same.
>>7268208
>obviously means a console and PC with hardware and operating system not later than 2001.
In the early days of 6th-gen /vr/, a mod clarified that the PC was considered a "platform," and hence any PC game released before 2007 was allowed, regardless of what hardware it ran on. That was dumb imo.
>>7269173
Yep. The mods made the mistake of having different rules for PC when they didn't have to. If it doesn't run on a 2001 PC, it's not retro. Simple as. If any rule needs to be changed for PC, the game cut-off should be changed to 2006 or 2005, because old Source games like Portal and TF2 could run on DirectX 7 hardware.

As if you zoomies aren't cancerous enough.

Every approach has issues.
As for AAA titles, there's plenty of games that were available on either PS2 or Xbox which cannot run on a GeForce 3, the best GPU of 2001. Mostly due to lack of DirectX 9, but sometimes purely due to lack of horsepower. The console ports were severely downgraded graphically in ways not possible on PC.
There's also a lot of games by smaller dev teams which weren't released until after 2007 but still run on a Pentium 3 and a first-gen Radeon.
Limiting by DirectX version shows you have no idea wtf it even means. Using DX 9.0c as the cut-off means that practically everything after holiday 2004 is gone.
Many games require the latest DX runtime because that's what they were built against. Even if they do not use the Direct3D features specific to that runtime. Examples: FlatOut and PoP Warrior Within both require DirectX 9.0c but still work on a Geforce 3.

>>7269165
NO. That is your personal opinion, but this board was no set up to cater to your personal opinions. Get that though your thick, childish skull. Or don't, I could care less but keep trolling the board and expect to be called out on being a little bitch. You retards have already said you'd rather burn this place to the ground than have it maintain rules that don't cater only to you which is pathetic.

>>7267564
I think they should change the cut-off to 2003 or 2005, either way ever since the new rules the quality of the board has decreased

>>7270738
The quality has gone down because the people who didn't like the change set out to ruin things. As they said they would, it's what they do. If the board isn't how they want it they'll seek to destroy it out of spite.

>>7269215
>couldn't run Crysis
How do you explain people who have got the game running on pre 2002 hardware then.

>>7268673
A lot of it was art direction going in the shitter, everything earth tones, some made it work like Gears of War but most didn't, didn't help that the engines were kinda shit for artistry

test

>>7267564
6th gen games like Unreal Tournament and Quake 3 were already retro before the rule changes

>>7269147
> Retro means pre-3D gaming. And that will never change.
This is how you sound. In 5 years when the PS6 comes out, the PS3 will be retro.

>>7268208
I think the whole 2007 rule is stupid and I suspect it exists just to keep Persona 4 threads off the board. Why else would you block PS2 games past a certain year when that rule applies to no other console gens and we can have threads about new games that just came out on NES or Genesis.

>>7271063
In 5 years the GameCube will be allowd to be discussed on /his/

>>7270993
They didn't? Post proof. A consumer PC GPU from 2001 is physically incapable of running the shaders from Crysis. If someone "got it working" they must have disabled or rewritten some of the shaders with mods or undocumented options and I don't think that should count for determining if a game is /vr/ or not.

>>7271118
>They didn't?
Oh really? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYALAL9toOw

Crysis is Retro. Deal with it.

>>7271153
>I upgraded the RAM and graphics card, and now it can run Crysis!
>Graphics card: Nvidia GeForce 6200 (2005)
You're kidding, right? No one is this retarded.

>>7271174
Top of the line 2001 graphics cards and ram would run it just fine like the clip above.

You are in denial.

>>7271181
You won't find any proof of that because it's literally false. Crysis needs PS2.0 and won't run on PS1.x hardware. It would be like putting a PS3 disc in a PS2. It's just not compatible.

Maybe zoomers don't understand this, because things are slower now, but 3D graphics tech was evolving at a crazy rate in the 90s and 2000s. One generation of GPUs would be completely unlike the GPUs that came before it. You should see all the people upset that they couldn't play BioShock because BioShock needed PS3.0 and they had PS2.0 GPUs.

>>7271212
I mean, you are technically correct, but then what? You look for what kind of shader a game required before posting it? If you can run only on CPU from 2001 but not video cards from 2005?
A different year for PC makes more sense.

>>7271212
>Maybe zoomers don't understand this, because things are slower now, but 3D graphics tech was evolving at a crazy rate in the 90s and 2000s. One generation of GPUs would be completely unlike the GPUs that came before it. You should see all the people upset that they couldn't play BioShock because BioShock needed PS3.0 and they had PS2.0 GPUs.
it was very frustrating, shit became obsolete very fast.

>>7271001
that gen was about the exact time i stopped liking videogames, it was only years later that i realized i still liked videogames, i just fucking hated the 360 and ps3 brown age era.

Ironically i love shadow of the colossus but the art direction in that game had a lot of influence in ushering in the brown and grey palettes that suddenly everyone thought were "so realistic"

>>7270556
Anon, are you alright?
No ones trying to take away your nerdy computers, you can keep it to yourself. Actually, really, keep it to yourself and don't flood the board with computer threads no one cares about.
But consoles will still be better.

>>7271212
You can emulate it in software though.
FEAR also requires PS2.0 but check this out:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0NsY7sBoWQ
Everything in that computer is from 2001 or before.
Besides this, there's also some PC to Xbox ports that require PS2.0 like Jade Empre. Should we be only allowed to talk about the console port of that?

>>7267738
Honestly this. There just hasn't been that much change in the games industry since then and there probably won't be for the next few years due to how huge and established it is. "Retro" should definitely refer to before everything was standardized and the industry was much smaller and more experimental.

>>7271938
You're an idiot. And what's currently ruining this bored with whiny gatekeeping bullshit.

>>7271972
The industry is far FAR more experimental now. It's just that people here just look at a list of the top 5 popular games and then act like that's all there is.

How about we exclude every PC Cuck instead. I think that's a perfect idea

>>7267564
> dis gaems not retro cuz I didn't played them when I was 5 y.o.
Yeah-yeah, grampa, take your meds and go to bed

>>7272270
>dis game retro cuz I played it when I was 5 years old
God I had zoomers

OP frequently fondles nigger dicks

>>7267738
Yes, that's right. 7th gen is when every game went for realism and everything became a cover shooter/FPS/over-the-shoulder-camera action game with generic stealth mechanics and Arkham's detective vision.

>>7269147
But you don't know when that was.

What constitutes "HD"?

>>7270993
What's the most advanced game that an extremely expensive Silicon Graphics desktop can run?

>>7271471
Yeah. My Compaq we got in about 2000 became immediately obsolete.

Had to get a Geforce3 and XP installed (it was Me) to keep up.

>>7272270
There's this problem with retro television networks.

Morons think stuff from the 1990s and even the 1980s is too new to be on the network and will complain on Facebook or YouTube comment sections about it.

Prescriptivists vs Descriptivists.
Prescriptivists will be too busy trying to tell everyone about some arbitrary cutoff. Descriptivists will be too busy having fun playing their retro ps3 with their kids.

>>7271972
>>7272236
I don't even think is a matter of experimental, it's true that with many indie developers there is a lot of new stuff. The main points are looks and gameplay.
1. The graphics have definitely improved, yes, but take any random person not into gaming and they will hardly notice the difference between an upscaled PlayStation 2 game and a contemporary one. Starting with the PS3 you really need to nitpick.
2. Gameplay modes have been established. The gamepads did not change shape, number of buttons and configuration since the first DualShock (1997) and they are the main form of input (I know KB+M is better for many games, but that's beside the point).
3. Genres are established. As many pointed out already: FPS, TPS, etc. There haven't been a Doom, Dune or Tomb Raider equivalent in the past 15 years.
Based on this we need to decide when it took place and set the bar there for retro/not retro.

>>7272291
>I had zoomers
You had? And where are they now?

>>7272717
I'm dreading the day when the games industry gets so bad that people look back fondly on the fucking PS3.

>>7272236
Name me your top 10 "experimental" games coming out

>>7268678
>below 9.0c
anon...

>>7272291
>those games are not retro because i didn't played them when I was 5 years old

>>7268627
Since it was released in the 90's first, no. There were very few PC exclusive games in 2007, two that I know of are Stalker and The Witcher, and neither received console ports. Are they retro?

>>7273303
They already are. The PS3 and 360 "weren't that bad" and they miss when licensed shovelware was on consoles and not mobile.

>>7273303
Xbox 360 did a lot for retro games, hating it is more of a /v/ mentality

>>7268069
Guess by whose hand you faggot, stop spamming these threads and go to reddit if you don't like it

>>7273385
By current rules, both of them, yes.

Is Battlefield 2142 which was released in 2006 retro? How about Battlefield 2 from the previous year?
Which Worms game marks the transition from retro to not-retro?
At what point do Need For Speed games go beyond retro?
NHL 94 is retro, NHL 98 is retro, NHL 10 is not retro. What game marks the transition?
As you can see it is incredibly fucking complicated to determine what is and isn't retro. Therefore the best solution is a vague one just like the current rules.

>>7267564
I don't know if you've realized it yet, but the entire board is under the control of 24 year old jannies, one of whom happens to be a transexual australian who shitposts literal hundreds of times per day. /vr/ is dead my guy

>>7272867
>1. The graphics have definitely improved, yes, but take any random person not into gaming and they will hardly notice the difference between an upscaled PlayStation 2 game and a contemporary one. Starting with the PS3 you really need to nitpick.

For realistic games sure, that's to be expected, but it's also given more freedom to make creative looking games in any style the developer wants. Far from every game, even the majority are going for photo realism.

>2. Gameplay modes have been established. The gamepads did not change shape, number of buttons and configuration since the first DualShock (1997) and they are the main form of input (I know KB+M is better for many games, but that's beside the point).
>3. Genres are established. As many pointed out already: FPS, TPS, etc. There haven't been a Doom, Dune or Tomb Raider equivalent in the past 15 years.

There's also far more experimentation and creativity here than you're either aware of or want to admit. Base genres are generally established but many games these days blend and experiment with all sorts if different gameplay and ideas. All you really showed is I'm right and you guys look at the handful of top games and dismiss everything else.

>>7267564
i agree

>>7273993
You are indeed right, but you are missing the point. I am not talking of graphic styles, or artistic direction, or trying to make the stale "old games good, new games bad", but rather to try and find a more or less agreeable demarcation line were we can easily see a difference between a contemporary game and a retro one.
Of course there are many games that will be exception. The Dreamcast as a whole was an exception before and nobody complained, but we need to find some general, easily applicable rule.

>>7273993
>many games these days blend and experiment with all sorts if different gameplay and ideas
Idk bro most games just put some rpg mechanics in to pad playtime and call it a day. Maybe throw a stealth mechanic in if you're lucky.

>>7267564
>but on the DirectX version.
All 3 STALKER games can use DirectX 8, champ. Cry more. STALKER looks better than Crysis when it come to shadows and lighting anyways.

>>7268208
>see: >>7266795
Looks like it got deleted because mods think you're faggot who doesn't get to write the rules. Try making your own leeeedit safespaces.

>>7274550
Reddit really is the place for them. They want a tiny board that caters to their specific taste, not 4chan. Buy they'll try to troll and ruin this place before they leave because that's how babies act.

>>7267564

Good idea, but the cut-off point should be Direct X 6.0.

>>7267564
This board may be full of autists but I don't think they're that far gone to check which version of DirectX each game runs. Also the cutoff is for year not the windows version that's some bullshit faggots who think they're clever came up with to post not retro shit.

>>7267564
Retarded.
What about games that don't use DirectX?

>DirectX 5
Basic early 3D. 100% retro.
>DirectX 6
Multitexturing and primitive bump mapping. A step towards modernity, but still well within the retro era.
>DirectX 7
Hardware T&L. Almost leaving the classic era, but it doesn't technically look different. Still retro.
>DirectX 8
The early stages of modernization and the beginning of the end of fixed-function.
>DirectX 9
Fully-fledged pixel shaders with floating point support, but still in a transitional phase.
>DirectX 9c
Support for HDR and other essentials for modern rendering, but arguably just a minor revision.
>DirectX 10
The ultimate conclusion of the transition. A completely new paradigm with the end of legacy features. Not retro.

>>7267564
Jesus Christ, who cares?

>>7277065
They get included, obviously

>>7277198
Doom 2016 is also my favorite retro game.

>>7274479
There are no clear lines, that's the whole point. Things are changing constantly, always have and always will.

>>7274550
The whole thread got deleted. A thread similar to this one.
Also, it is not writing the rules, just interpreting then in a proper and reasonable way. I suggest you to use your smooth jelly boomer brain for a while.
And yes, your favorite gaming hub has been flooded by zoomers and you should feel bad cuz this is "the new normal".

>>7278046
Meta threads like that and basically this one usually are because they're off topic. It's not a thread talking about retro games, it's a thread trying to re-define what they want "retro games" to mean, but that's already been established for this board and isn't up for debate. Hence why they get pruned, there's no point and it just turns into circle jerk fights that push actual threads off the board.

>>7278076
>push actual threads off the board.
Wojak and low effort memes from /v/ do this as well

>>7278131
Ohh no disagreement those are just as bad and should also get pruned. But there's also been a self-confessed effort on the part of some (like Babs) who dislike the rule change so they try to ruin the board for everyone else.

>>7267564
>The /vr/ cutoff for PC should not be based on the Windows version
Good. Because it's not. PC games operate under the same rules as pinball and arcade games where they're considered "console-less", so they're bound entirely to the 2007 game day. The original version of the sticky even specified it in regards to PC games.

>>7278351
Half Life 2 is my favorite retro game

*dabs in OpenGL*

>>7278385
That's a decent pick.