In the retro game era games were often bad. They had limitations caused by controls, graphics, processor speed, etc. Games weren't built on standard engines and all worked differently. These differences and quirks gave the games personality and the gameplay was fun because each game had its own unique way of interacting with it. These are still the funnest games to play. Here are three examples for you kids trying to catch the spirit of the old times:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=We8T3wOvsF8Pit-Fighter on the Game Boy: This is not a good game. It is slow and hard to see and control. Or is it? The fun of this game is in the limitations.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Y7WLHsycv8Road Runner's Death Valley Rally on SNES: The controls on this game are tough but the characters and scenes are really fun. It's enjoyable to be "in" this game. Who cares if the hitbox is bad?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpeIn9ebuzgTecmo Super Bowl on the SNES: This is one of the greatest video games ever made and people still update the rosters every year. There is no realism or simulation here but it captures all of the fun parts of football that matter. You have just enough control and even when you master the game it is still fun to play while romping on the opponent.
You're telling me that if I want to really go back to the past, I should play the shitty games that suck ass?
That's common advice for trying to fully enjoy and comprehend any medium
>>12479616Yes that is exactly what I'm telling you. Are they shitty? Do they suck ass? How do you know if you don't play them?>>12479617That's right. We can't rely on the curators with platforms who tell everyone how to think about the past. The great majority of people who played these games at the time have never gone on the internet and registered their opinion of them to you. The standard for "good" is terrible from what I have seen of the media being produced today.
You already went through this as a kid whenever you got a bad game
>>12479635I only remember a handful of genuinely bad games. More often than not games we thought would be bad were actually pretty fun. In those days renting games for a weekend was really common and sometimes we'd get something completely random because it was only like $3 so who cares. Truly bad games are not what this thread is about. It's about games that aren't bad but may be labeled as such by some stupid criteria used by modern gaming audiences because modern games are all kind of bad.
>>12479635OP is like 13 years old maximum
>>12479571I agree with the sentiment of your post but>Pit-Fighter>on fucking gameboyjust no
>>12479635Yeah, as a kid with limited games you spent more time than you would nowadays on the lesser games of your library. Eventually you'd take a break from Sonic and play something like Taz-Mania or Bubsy.
>>12479702Pit Fighter on SNES will teach you what a bad port of a bad game is like, but that's about it.
>>12479571>To really get retrogamesor perhaps just be old enough to have actually experienced the actual shit you know"retro gaming" anywayall bullshit
>>12479571I agree. Many games that I love I would never have even played if I dismissed them because they were said to be 'bad'. Heroes of the Lance for example. Sure it's unconventional (aka bad) but its a wonderful game if you'll take time time to understand it.
/vr/>hate zoomers because they aren't into old gamesalso /vr/>nooo zoomers stop being into old games
>>12479571>games were often badThis is true today too though
>>12479702That's exactly why you should play it, anon>>12479656I think I had Pit-Fighter on Gameboy around that age
>>12479571>AI slop>>12479629>AI slop doesn't know youtube cultural referenceare the jannies and mods of this board dead or not watching the board any more?
