What system do you consider retro?

[Emehr]

Anything before PS1, Saturn, and N64, I'd say. When those arrived we saw entirely different styles of gameplay and presentation, which is how I prefer to define console generations. Before those systems we saw 2D gaming, which is retro now since we don't see much of that style of gameplay anymore (except on portable systems and computers).

 

Retro (arcade-style gameplay): 2600/5200/7800, INTV, Colecovision

 

Retro (2D platforming and presentation): NES, SNES, Master System, Genesis, SegaCD, 32X, Turbografx-16/CD, Neo-Geo/CD

 

Recent (emphasis on 3D environments): Saturn, PS1, PS2, Xbox, N64, GameCube

 

Modern (tighter online integration): 360, Xbone, PS3, PS4, Wii, WiiU

 

 

The 32X is a tough one. It kinda walks the line between the 2D and 3D transition. I gotta give it the retro-nod though because it relies on retro consoles.

[The Usotsuki]

That's prolly a good way to put it. It's the same line I draw.

[Cynicaster]

I've seen this discussion come up several times over the years and the only thing that ever gets determined is the fact that nobody agrees on a fixed definition of retro.

 

For me, the defining characteristics of retro games are sprite-based 2D graphics and chip-based tunes, especially when these technologies are used out of necessity rather than choice. Honorable mention goes to the physical medium on which the game lives (i.e., cartridge vs. optical disk), but that characteristic doesn't correlate perfectly with my other guidelines.

 

Honestly, I don't now how anybody could--in the year 2015-- not include the Sega Genesis under the retro umbrella. Just look at the graphics engines, the music, the sound effects, the controls, the types of gameplay and compare it to the current state of the art. If it weren't for the convenience of broad-stroke terminology leading us to lump all games that get played on consoles hooked up to a TV under the general label of "video games", then I'd be hard-pressed to even consider the games on Genesis and PS4 to fall under the same category of entertainment media. As far as I'm concerned, they're that different. If Pong is a horse-and-buggy, then Genesis is a sedan with a carburetted engine, and the PS4 is a flying car.

 

I think the PS1 is kind of a bridge console that started life in the retro realm but eventually graduated to the modern world. At first, the controller was a simple digital d-pad and the games were not much of a departure from the best of the preceding generation. By a few years into its tenure though, the system had transitioned from being a hot-rodded retro platform to a proto-modern one, with the introduction of dual analog controls, and a preponderance of big-budget 3D games like Grand Turismo and Tomb Raider. Those games look pretty crusty by modern standards, but it's clear to see that those games--and other contemporaneous titles like them--constitute the template for most of what has been done since. That's why I prefer to draw the line at the SNES/Genesis generation.

[+Atari_Warlord]

I'd use a similar definition that is used for cars. If it is over 25 years old it is an antique/vintage/retro. So currently it would only be pre-1990 consoles.

[thetallguy24]

I've seen this discussion come up several times over the years and the only thing that ever gets determined is the fact that nobody agrees on a fixed definition of retro.

 

For me, the defining characteristics of retro games are sprite-based 2D graphics and chip-based tunes, especially when these technologies are used out of necessity rather than choice. Honorable mention goes to the physical medium on which the game lives (i.e., cartridge vs. optical disk), but that characteristic doesn't correlate perfectly with my other guidelines.

 

Honestly, I don't now how anybody could--in the year 2015-- not include the Sega Genesis under the retro umbrella. Just look at the graphics engines, the music, the sound effects, the controls, the types of gameplay and compare it to the current state of the art. If it weren't for the convenience of broad-stroke terminology leading us to lump all games that get played on consoles hooked up to a TV under the general label of "video games", then I'd be hard-pressed to even consider the games on Genesis and PS4 to fall under the same category of entertainment media. As far as I'm concerned, they're that different. If Pong is a horse-and-buggy, then Genesis is a sedan with a carburetted engine, and the PS4 is a flying car.

 

I think the PS1 is kind of a bridge console that started life in the retro realm but eventually graduated to the modern world. At first, the controller was a simple digital d-pad and the games were not much of a departure from the best of the preceding generation. By a few years into its tenure though, the system had transitioned from being a hot-rodded retro platform to a proto-modern one, with the introduction of dual analog controls, and a preponderance of big-budget 3D games like Grand Turismo and Tomb Raider. Those games look pretty crusty by modern standards, but it's clear to see that those games--and other contemporaneous titles like them--constitute the template for most of what has been done since. That's why I prefer to draw the line at the SNES/Genesis generation.

 

One of the big differences between CD and cartridges was sound and graphics, and why I tend to think cartridges (HuCards to?) are what should be considered retro.

 

Cartridges made each system unique, whether it was graphics or sound. With the move to CD's, it became harder to distinguish between consoles, sound and graphics were all the same. Sega, SNES, PCE, and even N64 were all unique because their cartridges and consoles for that matter offered characteristics that set them apart from competitors. With CD consoles after the Saturn, systems offered fewer and fewer exclusives and cross-system ports were practically the same. Street Fighter 2 has its own differences on the the Sega, SNES, and PCE, but Super Street Fighter 4 is nearly identical between the PS3 and 360.

 

For some cross-system ported games, you may prefer it on the SNES, but others the Sega. That's what made these unique and retro. You could collect them all, and still have a uniqueness to them.

 

They were also so simple, that anybody could play them and have fun. You don't need to spend hours learning the moves for Tecmo Bowl, but try picking up and trying to play Madden without reading the instructions.

[Rick Dangerous]

16 bit and prior.

 

for "Retro" gaming i'd say Dreamcast and prior. Gamecube is creeping on qualifying. Anything 10 years or older qualifies as far as the general population concerns.

 

Ask your average person in a gamestop these days if they ever play Dreamcast and they'll be like "duh...whats that?"

[BassGuitari]

For a long time it seemed like 15 years was the de facto standard. Once a system hit around 15 years old, it was considered retro. I remember in the late '90s the NES was just considered old junk and nobody wanted anything to do with it. Funcoland could hardly even give NES games away. There was just no interest. It seemed like people starting coming around in the early 2000s, but that may be coincidental since that's about the time classic game collecting really started taking off in general. There were far, FAR fewer collectors in the '90s.

 

I think that "15 Year Rule" needs to stretch out a little as time goes on, though, especially as developments in hardware and software are increasingly and incrementally evolutionary rather than revolutionary. I can't buy the PlayStation 2 and GameCube being "retro" yet. PS1 and N64, sure (...he said begrudgingly...). Anything before the 32-bit era, definitely.

[+LS650]

15 years? No way! I would say a good 25 years...

[Zap!]

I hate to say it, but I'd say anything prior to the year 2000 is pretty "retro".

 

My reasoning for that is:

1) Most young 20 somethings these days remember playing N64 and PS1 back when they were ~5 years old and they ARE ~20 year old systems.

2) If you were still playing Atari VCS or Colecovison in 1995, you were playing a retro console, and they were hovering around the 15-20 year old mark then.

 

That's different, because there wasn't much before it. I considered the 2600 retro in 1990. You can't apply the same amount of years today, because it just isn't the same.

[Torr]

I don't know, the more I think about it, I can even see things like PS2 and Gamecube being retro.

By today's standards, 640x480 resolution (being designed for CRT TVs rather than flat panel TVs), Stereo sound vs 5.1+ surround, next to no online connectivity, wired controllers were the standard, barely any motion sensor controls, a nice quick direct to game boot-up as opposed to being brought to a 'dashboard', memory cards rather than hard drives; many things are very different about these consoles compared to today's consoles. Just because the graphics haven't made the leaps and bounds they used to in the 80's-90's doesn't mean then aren't changing just as rapidly. They just are in different ways.

 

That and time moves faster for us old folks now. It's strange, but when I think about it, I got my SMS in 1990, my Sega Genesis in 1992, and my PC in 1994 and that's when I left console gaming until the Dreamacast 6 years later. Even though each console only had it's 'hardcore dedicated gaming system' time for 2 years, they seemed like eternities to me back in the day and still today as memories.

Nowadays I still remember my cousin getting an XBOX 360 on launch day and being blown away by the graphics like it was yesterday... that was almost 10 years ago... 10 YEARS AGO, I still can't believe it... By the time the year 2000 rolled around and my SMS from 1990 was 10 years old, or even if I compared to my Sega Genesis which was officially 10 year old hardware, it wasn't just the outdated graphics that made them seem bloody old, it was that 10 years was a LONG time back then... not so much anymore...

Edited March 28, 2015 by Torr

[Osgeld]

typically I say anything before the PS1 / Saturn / N64 era as well, but sometimes I have to argue "when you cant buy its games at freakin walmart still (Playstation2)" cause what would happen on a couple "retro" video sites is they would FLOOD with videos from (then) just last gen and ruin the entire vibe.

 

its been nearly 3 years since I had to say that, but its interesting that yes, yes you can still buy ps2 games brand new from walmart.com, ugh

[7800fan]

Anything that was out before I was able to drink beer legally is retro to me. So pretty much everything up to 16-bits era.

[SiLic0ne t0aD]

NES and prior ...ie; anything 8 bit is definitely retro to me IMHO.

I guess 16 bit would be too at this point, since they're over the 20 year mark.

Not sure I'm ready to call any of the 32 bit systems 'retro' yet but they are getting pretty damn close I suppose.

[moodorf]

Anything before the year 2000 for me. When I was a kid the year 2000 was always seemed like it would be futuristic so therefore anything after that is the future.

 

Which is the present...and not retro.

[Zap!]

Some systems will never be considered retro. Just like there is only one Golden Age (and the NES will NEVER be considered Golden Age), perhaps there should be a cutoff on what's considered retro.

[TheObscureGamer]

Anything Dreamcast and before is retro. /thread

[Rhomaios]

I've seen this discussion come up several times over the years and the only thing that ever gets determined is the fact that nobody agrees on a fixed definition of retro.

 

I think this is because no one quite knows what retro really means. It literally means "backward", but with video games, and only video games, it has become synonymous with "outdated" or "classic", depending on whom you ask.

 

But I think we should return to the original definition. "Backward" would mean that just about none of the consoles on the market are retro, with the exception of the Ouya, which was marketed as a system that invoked a lot of nostalgia or appreciating classic game play. Thus Final Fantasy III was paraded loudly.

 

2D platformers like Cave Story or Bit.Trip Runner are retro games, because they're modern games that look back toward the past for their inspiration or style or mechanics or whatever. Centipede is not retro. It's classic. It wasn't looking back at anything, it was modern when it was current.

 

The same definition is used with clothes. A retro shirt isn't an old shirt. It's a new shirt made to look like an old shirt.

 

But all the rest? What console, when it was released, was deliberately looking back at the past, had the feel of an earlier time? Maybe the 7800 could count, though an argument can be made that it was no such thing, that the inclusion of classics was more outdated than making a stylistic or fashion choice.

 

/thread

 

You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.

[VectorGamer]

 

 

 

 

You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.

 

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=%2Fthread

 

/thread

[Disrupture]

I would say PS2/Gamecube/Xbox and the others before.

[Keatah]

To me retro means backward in time. How far? That's anybody's guess. Combine that with lack of knowledge and personal likes and you'll get answers from the VCS through XB360

[akator]

^ Yeah, retro is pretty nebulous. It's between being too new for hipsters to care about it and "old." It doesn't follow a consistent pattern over time.

 

This pretty much sums it up:

 

[BydoEmpire]

That's prolly a good way to put it. It's the same line I draw.

Same here, that's the way I look at it.

[Rhomaios]

 

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=%2Fthread

 

/thread

 

You're not supposed to use it after you say something. Someone else comes in and says that, because there is nothing left to say.

 

Like laughing at your own joke.

[VectorGamer]

 

You're not supposed to use it after you say something. Someone else comes in and says that, because there is nothing left to say.

 

Like laughing at your own joke.

 

I've seen it used both ways

 

/thread

[The Usotsuki]

Usually I see it used as VectorGamer did.