Xevious? Retro section? Edit

Why isn't Xevious in the SHMUP section? I know it's old, but it's still a SHMUP before it's 'hurrdurr ancient'. Why do we even need a 'retro' section? I feel like retro is based on opinion, and pretty much any game in that section could be better placed in a section it's actual genre. Plus, it ends up making the retro list Xbox-hueg. Just a thought sine I'm not the main editing force behind this article - MFGreth1 16:54, September 14, 2009 (UTC)

Moved this. - Kierke 22:24, February 8, 2011 (UTC)

Yep, Xevious is definitely not retro. Despite being released in 1982, it was well ahead of its time and comparable to that of Raiden and early 19XX games. Note the colorful backgrounds that aren't lifeless, black expanses with drained neon sprites.

For future reference: if it was made before 1985 it's safe to assume the game is retro. I would only really file it if the graphics were completely basic or abysmal. Almost everything on this page classifies as retro, but there was a huge spike in graphical quality in between 1985-88 that left older titles in the dust. - Kierke 22:29, February 18, 2011 (UTC)

None of those games are retro. They are old, or some synonym. Seriously, check your dictionaries.

And, lets be honest here: do we really want to recommend these ancient games, as comparable to the others? Or are we just paying lip service to the classics? Perhaps two pages would be better: one recommending contemporary bests, and one honouring the dated classics. Just a thought. - Sam250 14:15, June 6, 2012 (UTC)

Images Edit

This page is boring as fuck, quite contrary to the high octane action displayed by these coin monsters. Would be nice to see some gameplay screen shots so people can look past the drab descriptions.

What's the preferred method of getting screen shots? Google images? PC MAME? Cabinet w/ capture card? - Kierke 02:48, January 14, 2011 (UTC)

Anything that isn't supergrainy or jpeg'd as fuck. Although that's a given. But yeah, I'm surprised myself that nobody has (at least recently) brought this to light. I'll get a few and see what I can do. --Dejiko 11:05, January 14, 2011 (UTC)

Layout Edit

I'm loving the SNES and Neo Geo page's layout. Very simple with attention to detail (promo/box art). It'd be cool to remove the genre redundancy and add it to headers with a table of contents. The top may look unsightly compared to the Neo Geo's as the TOC can't float, but there'd be a free cell to do anything with.

 ________	     ______________________________
[        ]	    (                              )
[contents]	    [      ^ arcade banner ^       ]
[ 1.     ]	    [      |  top of page  |       ]
[ 2.     ]	    (______________________________)  
[                                                                     ]
[                          emulation notice                           ]

 1. Genre                             
[promo art] [title] [year released] [description] [in game screen shot]

 2. Genre

Promo art really grabs attention. Title screens do too somewhat, and are easier to come by.

Thoughts? - Kierke 10:44, February 17, 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'd do it myself I wasn't sick and about to take a nap. And by promo art do you mean flyers? 'Cause if so, this following link is pretty good for that, if you didn't know already (kinda sure you did though, but I'll leave it just in case anyone else doesn't).

Well, it seemed like a good idea at the time.. but damn, it makes the list fuckhuge. Some don't even have promotional flyers or scanned marquees (ESP Ra.De., Halley's Comet). I had to concede and bump Halley's down to Retro for consistency's sake.

As for Retro most of the flyers are terrible. Middle aged couples posing in front of cabs trying to appear interested in the subject material (case in point). Then there's awesome fan art for only the popular titles. Marquees and opening screens are seemingly the only thing that'd be consistently easy to get.

Here's my proposed Retro section model:

1. Retro
[marquee/opening screen] [year] [genre] [description] [screenshot]
[title underneath/above]

That's only if the title properly sorts with an accompanying image thumbnail. Genre needs to be clarified too, as Retro is a mixed bag. - Kierke 11:23, February 22, 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. You and anyone else helping are doing a great job with this so far. I'm really lovin' it. And honestly, if flyers for certain games are weak, I think it'd be better to use fanart, model/sculpture-based scenarios, or something else cool like that. Although some are so exemplary, I think they warrant inclusion, even if they seem a bit goofy by today's standards. LOOK AT THAT MANLY FINGER. GODDAMN. --Dejiko 17:36, February 22, 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, non-official art must be only used if official art is unavailable.--LYRIC-Stormwatch (talk) 02:26, January 14, 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, that makes this a lot easier. DAT CURLY MOUSTACHE. Apparently Mario speaks fluent English, too. Old school Nintendo, you crazy. - Kierke 18:12, February 22, 2011 (UTC)

Having a boxart column for some tables but not others is awkward. Could we move the boxart column to the right side, so that the name of the game (which I believe to be most important) is in the leftmost column? --Mozai (talk) 02:24, December 7, 2013 (UTC)

I absolutely must disagree about merging the title and cover columns. While it saves some space, it makes the whole thing uglier, less readable, and inconsistent with the way most pages are right now. --LYRIC-Stormwatch (talk) 02:26, January 14, 2014 (UTC)

Bye bye, "run and gun" Edit

Lemme tell ya something about "run and gun": this genre does not exist. The games that were listen in that section were either platformers (Ghouls n Ghosts, Metal Slug) or shoot em ups (Mercs, Ikari). So I got rid of that bullshit section and redistributed its games to the correct ones. --LYRIC-Stormwatch (talk) 06:11, January 19, 2014 (UTC)

Proposal: split page by genres Edit

I think this page is kinda too big. How about splitting it by genres, much like the PC page is split by eras? LYRIC-Stormwatch (talk) 23:17, February 17, 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Welcome to your doom! 18:04, February 18, 2014 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.