Jump to content
DragonGrafx-16

PS2 turns 20 next year, isn't that crazy?

Recommended Posts

Ah, the "is it retro yet?" angle :) Love it.

 

My totally arbitrary "line in the sand" is between 6th and 7th generation. Main reasons would be that the PS3-gen moved toward broadband model (updates, e-shops, digi distribution, microtransactions and all that jazz), went HD so a totally new tech/look & bye bye CRTs, and that the Japanese gaming dominance has ended and balance of power shifted towards Western-style games (FPS, WRPG and so on). Fairly big changes, I'd say.

 

Therefore going back to PS2 and past is "retro" for me, anything after constitutes "modern".

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, the "is it retro yet?" angle :) Love it.

 

My totally arbitrary "line in the sand" is between 6th and 7th generation. Main reasons would be that the PS3-gen moved toward broadband model (updates, e-shops, digi distribution, microtransactions and all that jazz), went HD so a totally new tech/look & bye bye CRTs, and that the Japanese gaming dominance has ended and balance of power shifted towards Western-style games (FPS, WRPG and so on). Fairly big changes, I'd say.

 

Therefore going back to PS2 and past is "retro" for me, anything after constitutes "modern".

Funnily enough I used a CRT with my Xbox 360 until 2010 when I finally bought an HDTV lol

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funnily enough I used a CRT with my Xbox 360 until 2010 when I finally bought an HDTV lol

 

I gotcha beat- I upgraded from CRT in January 2016 becuase I needed HDMI for my Christmas ps4.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, as far what's classic, everyone's going to have their own views and opinions. I like the year 2000 angle because it keeps it clean and is pretty close to where I would draw the line. I don't mind the format of the media (disc vs cart), but that time/generation is right around where they were no longer just game consoles. Dreamcast? Pure games. PS2? Games and DVD player. And just about every system afterwards was also a DVD Player or Web Browser or Netflix box or... (The GameCube being a notable exception.) But of course this just makes sense when talking about consoles... classic computers? Heh... who knows...

 

But again, that's just my opinion.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's funny - around 2005, I remember posting in a forum the simple thought that "it's weird to imagine, but the kids of today will consider the PS2 as their retro console of choice when they're adults." Some incredulous old timers couldn't handle it, and thought it was just crazy talk.. "how can a modern console be retro???"...well, "wait 20 years, that's how".. It's a premise that never ends -- wait 20 years, and the kids of today will consider the PS4 as their retro console of choice. We almost all start out in retro gaming by replaying the games of our youth when we're in our 20's or 30's. When your hobby is rooted in nostalgia, like this one, "what you grew up with" is almost always the initial hook.

 

That's why I think the "when is it retro?" question is actually pretty straightforward -- Once a generation of consoles is firmly established (like we are right now with the PS4 / Xbox One), then you count back 2 generations to define what are now the retro systems (i.e., PS2, Gamecube, Xbox). For the young adults now entering the retro gaming hobby (most in their mid-20s), who grew up in the early 2000s, that's the era of gaming that draws them into the hobby.

 

For me personally, I like the 2000 cut-off too, ending with the Dreamcast.. that cut-off is what's mostly guided my collecting. Other people might base the cut-off on technology -- i.e., when cartridges stopped, or when online connectivity started, etc... But really, think about it.. that's just us being old people. We established those definitions when we were 25 and we started out collecting. Now we're older and we keep holding on to that same definition. I say base the definition on what a 25 year old entering the hobby today would consider retro. And for that age group - growing up, 10 years old and turning into life-long gamers while playing their PS2 on the living room floor - they would define the system as retro.

Edited by Retro STrife

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Thanks for the breaking news update. I just logged time for that system in the tracker last week.

 

But seriously, there really is no good way to determine what is classic or not. It is always going to be different and changing. If you are picking some sort of line in the sand then I think that the year 2000 is as good as any moment. Another option would be every system with media primarily on an actual cartridge (but not an SD card). So that would allow for inclusion of the N64 but not the PS1 or Saturn. You could also include the GBA at that point even though it released after 2000, but isn't that thing basically a SNES anyway?

 

The argument will never end, so I've just chosen to have an opinion and be ok with disagreement.

Why would any criteria where the N64 counts but the PS1 and Saturn don't be good? Both of those optical systems released a year or more ahead of Nintendo. :lol:

 

For me it's any home console that absolutely cannot display anything in 480p, or any handheld that released after that. That cuts off at the Dreamcast, GBA, Xbox, PS2, GameCube, PSP, etc.

 

So while I don't consider the PS2 "classic" yet, it won't be all that long, I'm sure.

Edited by derFunkenstein
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Thanks for the breaking news update. I just logged time for that system in the tracker last week.

 

But seriously, there really is no good way to determine what is classic or not. It is always going to be different and changing. If you are picking some sort of line in the sand then I think that the year 2000 is as good as any moment. Another option would be every system with media primarily on an actual cartridge (but not an SD card). So that would allow for inclusion of the N64 but not the PS1 or Saturn. You could also include the GBA at that point even though it released after 2000, but isn't that thing basically a SNES anyway?

 

The argument will never end, so I've just chosen to have an opinion and be ok with disagreement.

 

So then the N64 would be considered classic but not the Sega CD and PC Engine CD.

Edited by mbd30
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So then the N64 would be considered classic but not the Sega CD and PC Engine CD.

 

Well since those systems are primarily cartridged based, I think they would count as classic in this magical world of made up rules invented in my post.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would any criteria where the N64 counts but the PS1 and Saturn don't be good? Both of those optical systems released a year or more ahead of Nintendo. :lol:

 

For me it's any home console that absolutely cannot display anything in 480p, or any handheld that released after that. That cuts off at the Dreamcast, GBA, Xbox, PS2, GameCube, PSP, etc.

 

So while I don't consider the PS2 "classic" yet, it won't be all that long, I'm sure.

 

Sure, my silly rules "don't be good" just like yours "don't be good." Its just about how you see it. Personally the 480p distinction is as meaningless to me as I guess cartridges are to you.

 

But seriously, I don't care - there's no way everyone will agree anyway. I just threw the cartridge thing out there as an example of another alternative. The most compelling arguments to me are the genres of games on the system, the controller type and the inclusion of network play. Someone else mentioned the console having a secondary function which I think is another good point and also fits for the PS1 which is a CD Player.

 

From my perspective, game genres just really haven't changed all that much from the PS1 or PS2. It had the same sports games, FPS games, open world games, action adventure and platforming franchises that we have now. I played them with basically the same controller, and if I wanted to play them online, I could. It doesn't matter to me that they are displayed with more pixels or in a higher resolution, I see it as the same type of games. If you go back far enough that definitely changes. If I had to pick, I'd probably say that everything in that PS1 generation were the first modern systems. But I don't really expect you to care what my opinion is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

20 years already, sheesh. I was lucky to get one show up on release day on more doorstep. One thing the previous consoles taught me (PS1, N64, Dreamcast) was to pre-order. I did and I was amazed when it showed up the morning of release. No lines to wait in, no sell outs. I think it was from Toys R Us online.

 

Still holds the record for sales at 155 million. PS4 is on track to give it a run if the PS4 stays out another 2 years with 92 million sold so far.

 

What is amazing is that the battery in my PS2 is now 18+ years old and the last time I checked it, a few months ago it was still reading 3 volts. Of course, I do have some Nintendo carts with original working batteries too, but still.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think maybe the line between retro and modern should be the line between CRT and flat panels. When I think of most consoles all the way back to Ralph Baer's prototypes being able to be hooked on one TV and then needing a second TV for the more recent stuff that seems like a line between the classical "Ralph Baer Era" of consoles in line with his idea of controlling images on a CRT display to a new era where the definition of a video game needs expanded to include a new type of TV that he had no way of knowing about at the time. So, I guess that would be at the PS3 since it came with composite cables with HDMI only optional. It would also feel odd not to include it since most of its library is something like 5,000 PS1 and PS2 games.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, as far what's classic, everyone's going to have their own views and opinions. I like the year 2000 angle because it keeps it clean and is pretty close to where I would draw the line. I don't mind the format of the media (disc vs cart), but that time/generation is right around where they were no longer just game consoles. Dreamcast? Pure games. PS2? Games and DVD player. And just about every system afterwards was also a DVD Player or Web Browser or Netflix box or... (The GameCube being a notable exception.) But of course this just makes sense when talking about consoles... classic computers? Heh... who knows...

 

But again, that's just my opinion.

But the original Playstation wasn't just pure games. It was also a CD player.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've always felt that greatest distinction was between progressive and interlaced resolution, and then HD resolution for consoles. I know that means you have to group everything from the Fairchild to the Jag/PSX/Saturn/N64 as the same generation, and then the 3DO with the PS2/GC/DC/Xbox, but it makes sense to me haha. Just my thing.

 

PS2 was the last console I felt any excitement about. Even so, I waited until Silent Hill 2 came out to get one. At that point the graphics were finally getting to the point where I felt they were more impressive than what the Dreamcast offered (which I bought close to launch in Japan). I had a lot of good times with my PS2, but I felt that the RPGs on the PS2 were overall pretty poor, and RPGs had been my favorite genre ever since I was old enough to understand them on my C64.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I certainly wouldn't argue over one's use of the term "Retro" (Spirited Debate maybe, but even then you're talking about words whose definitions are not set in stone); Because the only Universal definition is that you are NOT playing this Current Generation of consoles...

 

I'd agree that everyone has their own definition...And that's fine.

 

Mine gets convoluted pretty quickly...I tend to think of anything SNES or before as Retro, with anything PS2 and up as Modern,...And I just think of an evolutionary gray area when it comes to PS1, 3DO, Saturn, N64, Jaguar, etc.,....Because in my mind, those systems are not Modern, but not Retro...

 

It might not make a lot of sense, but I'm also talking gut instinct here not cultivated thought...Kind of like when you say something off the top of your head. 95% of people will probably know what you're saying, but on the internet it seems there's always that one guy (or 2 or 3 haha) who has to disagree or demand clarification for something that was an off the cuff comment (the kind you shouldn't need to clarify)...

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The PS2 era of consoles was the last one where you just bought games on physical media and played them. No internet connections required or other headaches that are normally associated with PC gaming. I think that's where I'd draw the line.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this is a really interesting discussion!

 

looking from a different angle, the evolution of video games/consoles is a really quick one i think, but it's spanned roughly 45 years (not precise, but generally) of technology. I think it's a series of questions:

 

* What was considered 'retro' in the 90s?

* What was considered 'retro' in the 00s?

* What is considered 'retro' in the 10s?

 

i agree with some of the posters above- 'retro' means different things to different people. I think it'd be easier to differentiate between 'old' and 'current'.

 

My personal opinion since I'm stuck in the amber of time is that anything from '99 back is considered retro. :) For me, it's more a personal division of time than a technological division.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this is a really interesting discussion!

 

looking from a different angle, the evolution of video games/consoles is a really quick one i think, but it's spanned roughly 45 years (not precise, but generally) of technology. I think it's a series of questions:

 

* What was considered 'retro' in the 90s?

* What was considered 'retro' in the 00s?

* What is considered 'retro' in the 10s?

 

i agree with some of the posters above- 'retro' means different things to different people. I think it'd be easier to differentiate between 'old' and 'current'.

 

My personal opinion since I'm stuck in the amber of time is that anything from '99 back is considered retro. :) For me, it's more a personal division of time than a technological division.

 

I consider the cut off to be HDMI for modern vs retro.

 

My reasoning is simple. This transition occurred in the 360/Ps3 era when TVs for most people began to go from CRT to flat panel. Most TVs, today, can still run these consoles without any issues. If you try to run prior generations on modern TVs as is, you may have issues. My 2016 hates RCA and component signals....so much so the former doesn't even work. The 360 and Ps3 started that transition in console gaming.

 

I also think a big issue is the term "modern" needs to be separated into modern *technology* and modern *game design*.

 

Modern game design really started in the PS1/N64/Saturn era. If you ask most people what the first "open world" game was...they'd probably tell you Mario 64. Most modern game ideas they'd name titles from this era.

 

While the generations prior relied on their own devices for game play. A lot of the most popular games are turn based RPG, 2d fighters, and platformers. While these have continued on, these type of game play mechanics were far more prevalent in these generations. RPGs began to turn into combat systems around PS2, fighters began to use 3d next generation, and platformers have had some interesting takes.

 

 

I also think this is the problem. Many of us grew up when the PS1 and PS2 were brand new. My generation saw this systems in our formative years which really wasn't that long ago. People have to be able to disconnect their attachment and look at it from a perspective they wouldn't normally have towards it. The 2600, NES, and SNES were slightly before my formative years. So it has had time to be formally judge and that generation's impact on games recognized. I consider those "classic" because of my perception towards them, but I can't see PS1 or PS2 as classics. Retro, of course, as most are only found in retro game stores. There are plenty of cars, comics, cards, figurines out there that are old, but not classics because we have judged them not to be.

 

Might be wrong, but that's my idea of it.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great discussion and really interesting to hear different points of view. I agree that the definition of classic gaming can vary, but I don't think the "line in the sand" definitions based on technology work that well. The definition of "classic" or "retro" works best with some flexibility and longevity. Saying "HD vs. SD" or "offline vs. online" as the cutoff works perfect now, but would you still use that cutoff in 50 years? (i.e., do you mean PS4 would not be retro in 50 years?) And did classic gaming not exist 20 years ago, when HD consoles and online-based consoles weren't really a thing? If you are using technology as the cutoff, you'll always be changing the form of technology that you use as your cutoff (i.e., 20 years ago maybe you said "16-bit and under" vs. "32-bit and over".. today you're saying HD vs. SD.. 20 years from now maybe you'll say "physical media" vs. "digital only consoles")... Just a thought.

Edited by Retro STrife
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is just my opinion but I agree with the 2000 cutoff but with the definition of a "modern game". I.e. 3D acclerated graphics and standardized genres & gameplay...

 

That's what the 6th generation represents to me with the difference from "today's" games being on SD instead of HD, but you can take a Dreamcast, PS2 or Xbox game and put it on current systems and give it widescreen support and better rendering.

 

5th generation systems were more experimental going from 2D to full 3D and are historically classic in their own right.

 

So yeah I'll say the PS2 era games are classics but it's cool you can still play them (in a way) on modern systems.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great discussion and really interesting to hear different points of view. I agree that the definition of classic gaming can vary, but I don't think the "line in the sand" definitions based on technology work that well. The definition of "classic" or "retro" works best with some flexibility and longevity. Saying "HD vs. SD" or "offline vs. online" as the cutoff works perfect now, but would you still use that cutoff in 50 years? (i.e., do you mean PS4 would not be retro in 50 years?) And did classic gaming not exist 20 years ago, when HD consoles and online-based consoles weren't really a thing? If you are using technology as the cutoff, you'll always be changing the form of technology that you use as your cutoff (i.e., 20 years ago maybe you said "16-bit and under" vs. "32-bit and over".. today you're saying HD vs. SD.. 20 years from now maybe you'll say "physical media" vs. "digital only consoles")... Just a thought.

 

No, that's pretty much how it's supposed to work. We constantly re-define what things are to suit the modern need. Final Fantasy was an RPG when I was growing up, now it's a JRPG becuase the market's changed. Thunder Force was a shooter, now it's a SHMUP as not to confuse with FPS or Bullet Hell. Ask music fans to distinguish what's an 'oldie' or 'classic rock' and you'll likely find conversations just like this thread.

 

Technology-based definitions are good becuase it's a fixed point, not affected by time like a year cutoff. It also helps a collector know what they're going to need to run those systems properly- a modern flat screen isn't the best choice for a composite system without adaptive devices- and those devices are different than what you need for Atari era RF based systems.

 

I think we're going to see the tech cutoffs stay, but the naming change. Since, as you point out, the idea of using older systems specifically wasn't a thing 20 years ago (people did it, but it didn't really have a name), I think we're going to see new words come into play to define eras. I use these ones: pre-NES is vintage, 8 & 16-bit is retro, 32 bit to last gen is classic (or maybe neo retro, that's a nebulous era right now.) Will everyone use these terms? Probably not, but I imagine something similar will emerge to break up and define the ever expanding catalog of no longer current consoles, so each generation of people can identify who's playing 'their' consoles.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hoboy. That means 20 years ago I was returning brand new ps2 units twice due to defective DVD drives. Also, starved of real RPGs. Evergrace was not even close.

 

PS2 got better over time for sure.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this is a really interesting discussion!

 

looking from a different angle, the evolution of video games/consoles is a really quick one i think, but it's spanned roughly 45 years (not precise, but generally) of technology. I think it's a series of questions:

 

* What was considered 'retro' in the 90s?

* What was considered 'retro' in the 00s?

* What is considered 'retro' in the 10s?

 

i agree with some of the posters above- 'retro' means different things to different people. I think it'd be easier to differentiate between 'old' and 'current'.

 

My personal opinion since I'm stuck in the amber of time is that anything from '99 back is considered retro. :) For me, it's more a personal division of time than a technological division.

During the 90s and earlier when growing up what seemed to be the line that made me a retro gamer and most modern gamers was just about what was trendy and popular right now. Like when my older brother got the NES for Christmas I would have been considered retro on day one just for still being interested in the VCS because,"Why would you be interested in that still when it isn't new and popular now?" Or if I would go to the flea market, discover a Coleco-Vision, and be interested without getting others' approvable about rather or not I should think it is cool. This mindset could even apply to something that is brand new. Like if I wanted an Atari Lynx it wouldn't matter if it was new,"Why would you be interested in that? It isn't popular and Atari is old news." So, if I were a kid today I would probably be considered a retro outcast if I were interested in the Wii U because the Switch made it outdated but even if I was interested when the Wii U was new it would still count because,"The Wii U sucks and Nintendo is old news."

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saying "HD vs. SD" or "offline vs. online" as the cutoff works perfect now, but would you still use that cutoff in 50 years? (i.e., do you mean PS4 would not be retro in 50 years?)

 

Funnily enough, yes, I think I still would use it in 50 years (though unfortunately it won't be possible due to life expectancy maths).

Of course I do underdstand the logic of using only timespans as retro-measure but it does not work like that for me. That first 1970s to early 2000s era was when I grew up with gaming and it's my retro. That will never change, and the 6th/7th gen cutoff makes sense for me becasue it also marks a seismic shift in gaming, not only on tech-level but entire game design too.

 

Of course for somebody else it might be different, hence why this discussion will be always relative to personal experiences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...