/vr/ - Retro Games

Because we've hit a global recession on good games.

>>8545809
Because when arcade games were released they had to be good with zero bloat.

>>8545809
I have zero faith in the modern games industry. Aside from the occasional good game like (>inb4 contrarians trying too hard to be le /vr/oomers) Metroid Dread and Doom 2016, I've almost entirely checked out of modern vidya and instead tend to my old consoles, getting cartridges/discs of games I give a shit about and using Everdrive/Swiss/Emulating for the rest.
You'd be hard-pressed to come up with more than 15 good games that released after 2007, especially when you exclude indie games.
There's a wealth of good shit in the past, and nothing much to look forward to in the future. I think it says a lot the only game I'm looking forward to this year is a fucking LEGO game of all things, I'm dreading the release of BOTW2, and apart from that I can't think of anything else of note that's releasing. Meanwhile my backlog for retro shit is enormous.

>>8545809
Because microtransactions, day 1 patches, and online multiplayer (instead of local) objectively ruined games.

>>8545809
Even if a game is pumped up with filler, a mediocre game like Mega Man Legends still has way more effort put into it.

>>8545830
I was about to name 15 games until you said exclude indie. That's been my major focus lately and why I still like the stuff coming out. Big variety coming out on PC for me to pirate.

I like retro games (along with 6th gen and most 7th gen games) because
>they all have the content fully on disc without day 1 patches that will be unavailable when servers shut down
>are better
>not pozzed
>more gameplay, less movie
>are shorter but less drawn out

I made the decision to stay away from modern games when I was a young impressionable zoomer and my older friends made fun of the gamecube and told me the NES/SNES/N64 was the best. I never looked back after playing the old games on an emulator and eventually collecting the consoles, though it is a bit cringe.

I've been playing a lot more older games lately, and I'm realizing that a lot of really mediocre ideas and execution still give you more fun than the modern games just not doing anything besides their very basic gameplay. For how big the budgets are, modern games are usually a total drag to play.

I wouldn't say I even like retro games since I dislike anything before the 5th gen and my taste is focused more towards 6th and 7th gen. But the reason I like those better is because how many of those games remain awesome and fun to this very day, whereas anything in modern gaming is just boring and generic, if the game even comes finished that is. And that's just the beginning of the problems, other people here have already pointed out the absolute state of the industry and all the bullshit behind it.

>>8545809
I generally find them to be more fun than most stuff that was released in the last 10 to 15 years. It's been said a million times, but on-disc or day 1 DLC, games a service models and the overemphasis on delivering photorealism and cinematic experiences over just making a fun game have made most modern games unappealing to me when compared to older ones.
There were so many great games made from 1980-2010 that I'm still spoiled for choice even if I just limit myself to playing games from those thirty years.

>>8545809
>they're actually completed
No perma-alpha state, no patches, no mtx, no revolving meta, no broken launch clients, etc. Even 99% of the "broken" stuff in retro is optionally broken and usually to the players' advantage.
>less derivative bullshit
Almost every game from the past 20 years is just another version of a game that came before it. If you're lucky, the graphics have improved slightly.
>guaranteed single-player mode
I don't want to play vidya to deal with other people's retardation, I want to relax with my own sweatpants and drool. I can't even tell if half the games being released are single payer, which brings me to my next (minor) gripe:
>marketing
Why the fuck do I have to look up independent gameplay videos to find out what the gameplay is about? Every single official video game trailer is a mess of cutscenes with a vague, ominous voiceover. Most of them are clearly trying to mask the fact that they overpromised but are going to underdeliver (as always). They're hesitant to even label their game under a specific genre, "it's an action-oriented, player driven competition of skill that..." Bitch, does that say "Call of Duty" above the title? Just say it's an FPS already, damn.

>>8545835
Yes. This is why im none to pleased about Microsoft becoming video game Disney-Facebook-Amazon.

I legit don't care about retro games except the ones I grew up with. Which is actually alot of games

But like, even though I love Digimon World on PS1, I have zero interest in DW2 or DW3

/vr/ is where people go to right before they lose interest in games entirely, which I expect will happen to me soon

>>8545809
video games use to be good, simple and unpretentious. but as time went by, vidya industry decided that it's "old". they needed to be the opposite of old games to appear "progressive".
you have a simple story or no story? no, we need to make a huge pretentious story about the meaning of life.
you focus on gameplay? no, we need movie games with cutscenes at every corner, and make it all about "content", not gameplay.
your game is hard? no, let's remove all depth, include a 2h tutorial, and hold the player's hand to appeal to the lowest common denominator.
you have few levels? no, you need a huge open world that is padded to hell.
you have cartoony graphics or abstract worlds? no, we need to make it as realistic as possible, and make it all grey and dull to show how mature it is.
the modern game industry simply does everything the opposite of old games, and calls it "progress". there's no "progress", it's a loaded term that implies that new is always good and old is bad. with this logic, they're simply running themselves into the ground. modern "games" like Last of Us are the epitome of that. it's such an epitome of overindulgent, pretentious wankery that treats itself a peak of video games, while being hilariously dull and stupid at the same time. it's like a final step to shitting on everything that made old games good.
that's why I play old games.

>>8545809
I really have no good reason to enjoy retro games. I'm just a man in my 30s wishing for the good old days. I can't seem to fit in anywhere anymore. My life is spiraling. And the worst thing is it's crystal clear to me the new generation is special. I mean, this kind of thing happens every generation, but millennials are truly the worst generation because we play retro games sometimes.

>>8545809
There's no DLC or online mode game in retro games: only fun

1) They're less bloated than modern gen games.
2) They're easier to jump into.
3) There is a greater range of different styles and characters to play as compared to triple A games.
4) None of the popular modern genres appeal to me compared to the common genres in older games.

>>8545809
A lot more varied than modern games in terms of what's most important, the gameplay. Not to say there aren't unique modern games but still.

I don't, I just like them too

>>8545809
Reminds me of the time I wasn't depressed.

>>8545849
Just name them anyway. "Indie" and "AAA" have no definitions whatsoever, and the latter is very deliberately not used in marketing to keep it from having a definition.

>>8545809
I don't, I play old non-/vr/ and modern games too.

>>8545809
Older games were usually designed with one primary goal in mind: making the best game possible. When you bought a game, you got the whole game. No subscriptions, no random loot boxes or shoehorned progression systems. You unlock additional content by playing the game itself and playing it for its own sake.

I like plenty of modern games too, but there’s no doubt that something of value has been lost in game dev. Mobile gaming fucked everything up badly.

I am poor and only play what I can emulate.

>>8545809
one word … SOUL

>>8546748
>/vr/ is where people go to right before they lose interest in games entirely
this is false. in fact, the older I get, the more I enjoy games (mostly old and some new).

>>8548080
You're the exception. Most people just want that hit of nostalgia

>>8545809
I like retro games for the nostalgia and the charm, but also because they did so much with so little. Limitation breeds creativity. Things like difficulty, simplicity or even the music in are also a reason. Its simple fun.

But I do like modern games too, if they work at release. Red Dead Redemption 2 is one of my favorite games ever, but these games are like immersive movies that are very slow and restrictive. Not everyone likes that kind of experience but I do.

>>8546748
>>8548107
Seriously? Nostalgia? Imagine how sad your life must be right now if that's the reason you play a game.
I just play good games, doesn't matter if it's /vr/, /v/, etc.

>>8548045
I personally don't understand the modern distinction between indie and "AAA". It's always been common for a game to be made by 5 guys in a garage to get a wide release and it's more about the creativity involved than the level of game complexity.

>Know from birth that if the game was good the budget was irrelevant
>used to play flash and browser games on newgrounds just as much as big games

>>8548135
good for you man, tho like I said you're the exception

>>8548135
NTA but in his defense I dont think it’s so absurd to play a game for the sake of nostalgia. It’s not purely because of nostalgia though… it’s a combination of nostalgia + the game itself being very good.

For me it’s kind of the opposite. I like scrolling through my rom library and playing some random old game I’ve never heard of before.

>>8548148
There isn't one, AAA just means "big budget" but even that is subjective. If Ubisoft or EA was to start using it, someone would take them to court and demand an objective definition with hard numbers.

>>8545809
I feel that nowadays there's a focus on spectacle, and there's nothing wrong with that, but to me it feels like in previous decades, due to technical limitations, gameplay was key, even if story and cosmetics were a focus too, it was never like it is now, where we have these long runtimes, to justify the price tags, that just drag.

I find the majority of modern game design choices to be annoying even excluding the excessive monetization and games as a service bullshit.
>realism over aesthetics
>forced slow walk and chat
>close up behind the shoulder cinematic third person
>copypasted empty open worlds
>boring level design
>can't talk to all NPCs
>B movie acting
>B movie storyline
>endless filler
>shitty side quests
>mediocre combat
>movement feels laggy
That being said there's usually still a few new games I enjoy every year but I don't bother with most anymore.

>>8545809
I dont just make remastered version

>>8545809
Because i like playing games, not watching cinematics.

>>8545809
because they're free and run on everything, and I love things that are timeless as well as things that are obscure.

I don't prefer them, I just also play them.

>>8545809
- Gameplay is more immediate and the center of the experience.
- Music is A LOT better, driving, catchy and enjoyable.
- Art direction has more character and is more varied.
- Story is less dragged out intense edgy soap-opera drama and just delivers when it's needed.

I still play new stuff but there's just such a distance between when a good game drops now that there's years were I feel nothing good came out and I'd just replay games that I know are good and will still give me a great time. Nostalgia part of it sure, but that could never carry a game for me, they need to be objectively good at delivering something fun to sit down and play, and I think this is also why zoomers look into retro stuff too, just looking for good games to play.

>>8545809
I don't have a preference, I just play good games. Anyone here claiming it's some kind of self-righteous act to "stick it to modern games" is mostly coping with their inability to keep up with good releases. Good games come out every year, it's your responsibility to figure out what they are. At least the anon that answered with "nostalgia" is being honest with himself.

Less is more. I just don't have fun with modern games (excluding a few indie surprises) anymore. Even the ones I did have fun with, like For Honor and Dead by Daylight, eventually get ruined because they HAVE to keep adding and changing. Which is a recipe for disaster. Not to mention if it's a multiplayer game, you have to deal with fags nowadays and it's just not an enjoyable experience, so why keep complaining and bother? Even singleplayer experiences, which are my favorite, can't slow down and just single on one well-crafted idea or concept or experience. Ghost of Tsushima, Cyberpunk, Horizon Zero Dawn, Middle-Earth, it's all just flashy but shallow bullshit. A whole lot of nothin' with a big checklist of chores.

>>8548468
I would argue even the spectacle is gone. It's mostly extremely shallow unreal engine shit nowadays. I seriously cannot remember the last modern game I saw that visually wow-ed me without being photorealistic shit, like Death Stranding. The last time I was blown away by spectacle was when I finally checked out Killer7 last year.

>>8545809
Because I'm getting old and year by year losing touch with the world. I'm turning into a boomer and developing the grill mentality and I don't even mind it. That too in itself is part of the boomer mindset.

>>8545809
I don't know. I guess I grew into retro games more than modern games from having Sonic Mega Collection on Gamecube as my very first game and falling in love with gaming form there.

>>8549445
Grilling and minding your own business sure beats paying attention to the endless cycle of outrage and advertising that is the internet these days.

>>8545809
I didn't know Vandal Hearts on Saturn was officially localized. I'm guessing it was a PAL-only thing.

>>8549459
Nah that's a reproduction disc. It just got a translation patch