this is what they took from you

this is what they took from you

  1. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    don't really care I had a playstation and zero regrets

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      ps1 was for poor kids back then

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        it cost a hundo more at launch
        but thankfully it had actual games and they were cheaper too

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >more expensive than N64
        >for poor people
        Nice try, tendie pedo

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        No, poor kids stuck to their snes or genesis, if they played consoles at all considering they weren't as widely accepted as they were even in the mid-late 2000's let alone today.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Got a mod chip and played hundreds of burned games which i bought on ebay for 25c a piece, saving me thousands of dollars

        Kek at you pleb

  2. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I didn't have an N64 as a kid.

  3. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Why was being a kid so much better in general back in the 1990s? I mean yeah corpos were still nickel and diming us back then, but at least they brought their A game and tried to WORK for your money. I genuinely feel really bad for kids these days not getting to experience cool shit like this. Seems like most corporations, whether it's game developers, toy manufacturers, film studios, etc. always do the bare fucking minimum these days, if they can even accomplish that.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      The 90s were really competitive a lot of franchises were born back then but a loto of them fell before they got to the 2000s. For example medabots is kinda still alive today but its irrelevant.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        for me it was monster rancher

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      because 90s consumerism was awesome and the video game industry was way better

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      I mean Masuda's kinda right in the money here. Video games back in the day cost way more, were not as easy to pick and get and as a result sales could easily be bad. A kid might've gotten only 2 new games a year so they always wanted to make something that stands out and people would keep playing over over until the company name is burned into their retinas so they can be exited for the next game they push out expecting their moneys worth again
      Now thanks to the overabundance of free and dirt cheap games a higher quality product is even a tougher sell as people tend to spend less and less time playing a single game making those projects very high risk with low reward, and making "free" games with all kinds of scummy monetization models which is pretty low risk, high reward which is way better in a company's eyes

      tl;dr companies will do the bare minimum because today's monkeys keep paying for the bare minimum

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Yes, what you and he are saying is correct, FROM A BUSINESS STANDPOINT. If the creative director of a game is saying it, however, it's a problem. He should be trying to make the best game he can possibly make, out of passion, and then told by the bean counters, "no, it costs too much to do that." If the guy at the top is saying "put in the bare minimum effort, this is a budget product," that mentality will bleed down through the entire team, everyone will half-ass it, and the game will suck. Even if he secretly believes in trying to save money, he should be inspiring his team to put 110% effort in to make the game great, because that's what the director's job is; direct the people making the game.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Why are you assuming that the PRspeak excuse he gave in an interview is what he told his team?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            the final product reflects that situation

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >He should be trying to make the best game he can possibly make, out of passion
          Why? He didn't become the creative director because he had passion about the game. It's because he knows how to market and sell a game while doing the minimum required to achieve maximum profit.

          Once you reach a certain level of success and once the people with the original vision for the product have left the company, all you have left is a soulless company looking to make cash. That's just how it is. Creativity and a "good game" don't necessarily sell product, and making a good and creative game costs money.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      You know, ever since i started working as a babysitter i realised that masuda may not have been wrong at all.
      >Watch 7yo play games on his switch
      >Switches to a new game every 10 minutes or so
      >Instantly bored of everything
      >Same goes for cartoons unless they got tons of stuff happening at all times with dynamic scene cuts at all times
      >Watch 6yo play games on his tablet
      >Downloading game to play it for 15 minutes and then deletes it and downloads new one
      >Same issue with cartoons
      This is a prevalent issue with most young children with access to consoles/smartphones that i babysit. I don't blame them for trying to cater to those kids.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      I mean Masuda's kinda right in the money here. Video games back in the day cost way more, were not as easy to pick and get and as a result sales could easily be bad. A kid might've gotten only 2 new games a year so they always wanted to make something that stands out and people would keep playing over over until the company name is burned into their retinas so they can be exited for the next game they push out expecting their moneys worth again
      Now thanks to the overabundance of free and dirt cheap games a higher quality product is even a tougher sell as people tend to spend less and less time playing a single game making those projects very high risk with low reward, and making "free" games with all kinds of scummy monetization models which is pretty low risk, high reward which is way better in a company's eyes

      tl;dr companies will do the bare minimum because today's monkeys keep paying for the bare minimum

      In addition to this is that gaming is no longer a niche hobby by ANY means. This isn't some hipster "everybody likes it, it's not cool anymore" statement, it's just that when gaming was mostly seen as being for kids and nerds, the big companies had a lot more leeway for being experimental and weird. For those of us who had collections of gaming magazines back then, think about the ad pages in them. Those got BIZARRE, right? But that was just where the culture was- for gaming, and for the 90s as a whole, more or less. It was a decade that thrived on people and companies being unapologetic fucking weirdos and it spawned some really creative stuff as a result. Nowadays the trend is sliding more towards being seen as "mature" as the demographic for this stuff continues to age up.

      It's a bit unrelated, but one of the most visual example I can think of is McDonald's refurbishing their restaurants to do away with the bright red and yellow color schemes for their buildings and replacing it with more modern grey and brown blocky construction. I'm sure it makes sense to a committee somewhere, but it's all so much more boring now.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        God, I remember McDonald's looking like that. I miss the 90s.

  4. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    does anyone still has a pokemon credit card?

  5. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    That's just consumer bait

  6. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    You could make cute stickers on Stadium too. :3

  7. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    This is why I have
    >CRT
    >N64
    >Everdrive 64
    >Transfer Pak
    I can turn the computer off and BAM I'm back in 2000.

  8. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    never made its way to europe in first place
    therefor i didn't lost anything

Your email address will not be published.