Jump to content
IGNORED

What makes a system "Retro" - open discussion


Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, carlsson said:

If Satellaview marks the beginning of modern gaming, I suppose the Intellivision Playcable would too. It means "retro" are all game systems before 1980/81, and everything after that consists of modern games. :-D

Satellaview itself does not, which is why I gave a specific date. I did think of the Playcable, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While it probably was too expensive for home gaming, I understand that both Atari and Coleco (possibly others) were looking into interfacing LaserDisc players to their consoles in the first half of the 80's. Now I'm not sure it would have made such a huge leap in the gaming experience if they could overlay the relatively low resolution console graphics onto the LD image that we'd call it a technology changer like the PC Engine CD expansion may have been some 3-4 years later down the road.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Keatah said:

Apple II

This actually brings up another question. When do computers, and, more specifically, computer games, count as retro and not? They don't really have defined generations like consoles do, and even now, my build from October 2017 is maybe considered outdated, depending on who you talk to.

 

Then again, nobody seems to agree on what makes a console generation, either. ColecoVision, SG-1000, Mark III, Master System, 32X, and the thing with the PC Engine vs the original concept of the SuperGrafx all blur the line, although the amount depends with each system, I think.

 

I also occasionally see the Game Boy Color mentioned as "just a Game Boy but with a color screen", but it apparently is actually more powerful than the original Game Boy, so maybe that counts as a different generation, as well. This is a bit off topic, perhaps, but I think it's interesting.

Edited by Steven Pendleton
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Computers tend to be counted in bits just like consoles do and in both cases there are examples of early and late specimens within each generation.

 

Some think the age of modern computers started when MHz went into triple digits, i.e. Pentium 100/133 and upwards. Others push the limit further and draw the line at 1 GHz. Last month I happened to look up the available CPUs around Y2K:

 

February 1999: 450-500 MHz Pentium III

June 1999: 500-700 MHz AMD Athlon (K7)

November 1999: 550-1000 MHz AMD Athlon (K75)

December 1999: 750-800 MHz Pentium III

November 2000: 1.4 GHz Pentium 4 (so modern)

 

Thus the cutoff date at 1999/2000 and the cutoff at 1 GHz play along quite nicely, both for consoles and computers. But again, it depends on how old you are. If you were born in the early 2000's, in your perspective most Pentium 4, Athlon 64 etc systems will seem outdated and retro by now, despite you fairly well can run at least XP, Vista and possibly 7 on them (same goes for Linux/BSD of course).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Steven Pendleton said:

This actually brings up another question. When do computers, and, more specifically, computer games, count as retro and not?

That's a good question. I guess I could bring up another side point. When considering a computer as being retro, should one consider the original OS the computer runs off of, or the actual hardware itself? PCs are always upgradable, but with consoles that's not always the case.  I mean with consoles there is only one operating system, updates aside, just like when PCs come pre-loaded with Windows 3.0, Windows XP, Windows Vista, Windows 7, Windows 8, and Windows 10. Should we be considering retro consoles based on when the operating system it runs off becomes outdated, or should it be based on when the actual hardware becomes outdated?  Of course modern PCs could run older OS, but its not always the case that older PC's can accurately run modern operating systems.

 

 

 

 

Edited by Nintendo64
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Steven Pendleton said:

Older consoles don't even have an operating system at all, though. They just run the game that's inserted.

Wouldn't you consider the firmware and bios that were in these older systems, software that is needed for the games to run? I mean its not an OS in the traditional sense, but there were small bits of software written inside these machines in order for the games to be able to be played and for the controller movements to be be detected. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

Maybe I should have worded it differently with older consoles, when the bios/firmware becomes outdated, should that be when we consider it retro?

Edited by Nintendo64
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awhile ago I posted this:

Quote

Antique: Early pinball, redemption games, pre-WW2 arcade games etc. While not video games as such, and certainly not home systems they represent anything that is considerably rare and old enough to be a specialist purchase. You probably have to go to an expert to get these restored/repaired - or be a strong enthusiast yourself.

Vintage: Electromechanical arcade machines in the 60's and 70's, and anything that uses RF signal. My logic is this: As a child I knew about tuning in stations to get systems to work, it was just something I needed to do to get it to work, kids these days don't need this, they'd have to have "special" knowledge to get a system working. Vintage systems and machines is not the purchase of the casual user, if you are buying this kind of stuff, you want to keep / play it out of a genuine interest or collection building.

Retro: My logic for using this word is below. This is for the NES, Master System, Mega Drive, SNES, PS1 and the Turbografx - these have (or about to have) mini/classic versions which is intended as nostalgia. Most people who buy the original consoles too at this point do it for nostalgia (I've sold plenty of consoles to people who aren't collectors, but rather people around my age who wants to play the old games again in the way they remember). Although Saturn / N64 doesn't have classic versions, I think they still fit into this category.

Pre-Modern: I find it hard to label what PS2 and Dreamcast should be in, its a common problem I think so this category is for them.

Modern: Last gen and current gen, PS3 and 360 still have some services so I think they should be still counted in this.

 

My logic on the wording is this:

 

Antique: Usually left for things that is a 100 years old, its not always so strictly applied. Video games is not 100 years old yet, but early arcade and pinball machines are - and they exist as precursors to the home systems. On wikipedia it is described as: "is an item perceived as having value because of its aesthetic or historical significance" and " is usually an item that is collected or desirable because of its age, beauty, rarity, condition, utility, personal emotional connection, and/or other unique features. It is an object that represents a previous era or time period in human history."

 

Vintage: Immediately after wikipedia's definition of antique it has: "Vintage and collectible are used to describe items that are old, but do not meet the 100-year criteria.". The use of the word vintage for objects is relatively modern, and there is debate about how old something should be before it classifies. Most say at least 20 years, which would easily match the kind of consoles that I included. I think Vintage also helps to suggest that there is some degree of interest / knowledge that is now deemed specialised. Remember, we're all getting older!

 

Retro: The use of the word retro now has many uses, but in most other forms outside video games retro usually means a quite specific style, or use. I think we need to get out of the use of the word retro to mean a broad range of non-modern games as there is certainly a variety and history we can now explore. Retro in the designer / interior world tends to mean anything from 1950's to 1980's, but its more than that - its the idea of it being functional and chosen by design in a modern period. Take the guy in the UK who lives in the 1940s styled house and hosts school trips - he lives retro despite the fact he could clearly have a flatscreen tv, a microwave and wifi. He chooses not to. Similarly, nostalgia is flooding the market with mini/classic machines. This isn't particularly for the collector or enthusiast, we feel its too limited with "only" 20-40-60-100 games, but rather for the casual players or prior gamers who say things like "oh man do you remember sonic the hedgehog!!!".

 

Pre-Modern: Ahaha, I think this is pretty much the "whatever is left" category. I think I too struggled with the PS2 period, it was quite instrumental time for the gaming industry, not just the PS2 but the other consoles too. Dreamcast had functional internet use, PS2 had DVD playback, X Box had... whatever it had and Gamecube had loads of accessories. I think Wii probably fits here too now, as its services is now completely dead.

 

Modern: The average user has these, they double up as home entertainment machines. In fact, like mine, they are probably used MORE for watching TV than playing games. PS3 is a cheap blu ray player, X Box One's is for kids playing fortnite, which ever console you have, you or someone else in the house probably use YouTube or amazon or netflix on it.

I think most of it is still relevant. The only way to get out the use of retro or modern labelling is to create more relevant labels. I still struggle with what ps2 type consoles should come under, but I think they aren't generally used now by anyone but collectors. Maybe the odd person still using them as dvd players. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Nintendo64 said:

Wouldn't you consider the firmware and bios that were in these older systems, software that is needed for the games to run? I mean its not an OS in the traditional sense, but there were small bits of software written inside these machines in order for the games to be able to be played and for the controller movements to be be detected. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

Maybe I should have worded it differently with older consoles, when the bios/firmware becomes outdated, should that be when we consider it retro?

I forgot about the BIOS and stuff, which I really shouldn't have since I have a damn SuperGrafx sitting right next to me here on my desk and the user actually has to supply the thing with a BIOS to get it to run CD games, depending on if you have the CD-ROM2 or Super CD-ROM2 attached to it and what type of CD game it is. I don't know enough about how the BIOS works to be able to say. I'm sure someone here will let us know, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not entirely on-topic, but there is a whole "sport" in trying to run newer Windows operating systems on older hardware. For instance Windows 7 officially requires a 1 GHz CPU (post-2000) but it reported by many people to run on e.g. an AMD K6-2 @ 500 MHz. Some even managed to install it on a Pentium II @ 233-266 MHz, though lower than that not even the most hardcore hackers seem to be able to go. Even if you manage to do that, your old Pentium II will not become any better and just barely will be able to run newer software anyway. I imagine you could install a newer web browser on your very old computer by doing this, if you insist to use it for Internet. Strictly speaking, I think hardware and the release year is what should count.

 

It brings up other topics: Are systems like the CollectorVision Phoenix a retro or modern system? Same goes for other newer creations adhering to older restrictions. It is quite obvious that e.g. the Intellivision Amico is a modern system once it is released, same goes for the Ataribox VCS if it ever sees the light of the day but some of the other projects are purposely retro restricted, without necessarily being retro systems.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Mikebloke said:

Awhile ago I posted this:

I think most of it is still relevant. The only way to get out the use of retro or modern labelling is to create more relevant labels. I still struggle with what ps2 type consoles should come under, but I think they aren't generally used now by anyone but collectors. Maybe the odd person still using them as dvd players. 

I think the PS2 probably gets some decent use from people who do not have a backwards compatible PS3 but still want to play their PS2 games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, carlsson said:

It brings up other topics: Are systems like the CollectorVision Phoenix a retro or modern system? Same goes for other newer creations adhering to older restrictions. It is quite obvious that e.g. the Intellivision Amico is a modern system once it is released, same goes for the Ataribox VCS if it ever sees the light of the day but some of the other projects are purposely retro restricted, without necessarily being retro systems.

Yeah, Polymega, Analogue's systems, RetroUSB AVS, MiSTer, the mini consoles that got mentioned earlier, Retron 5, bootleg systems that play a bunch of stolen preinstalled Famicom games on bad emulation, etc., are all interesting from this perspective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's my criteria for a retro console:

 

1. It cannot have any official new games being released for it (duh!)

 

2. The system has to be unsupported for at least 10 years

 

3. If it has online capabilities, it must be no longer supported by the official company

 

4. It has to have an emulator

 

 

By these criteria, the PS2, Xbox, GameCube,  Dreamcast, and GBA era are the most recent retro consoles and the next generation will be completely retro in 2029-2030 (?). Of course, this is subject to change (I've heard that the PS3's PSN is the same as the PS4's PSN, so it may never go offline).

Edited by Magmavision2000
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Magmavision2000 said:

1. It cannot have any official new games being released for it (duh!)

Genesis Mini/Mega Drive Mini Darius

 

Also the near-Arcade ROM hacks on the PC Engine mini. Not sure if those count, though. Still, I think you have a pretty comprehensive list here.

Edited by Steven Pendleton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Steven Pendleton said:

PS3 being the weird outlier since it can run Linux. Older consoles don't even have an operating system at all, though. They just run the game that's inserted.

 

Surely a Sega super fan such as yourself should know that the Dreamcast has Windows CE!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Punisher5.0 said:

 

Surely a Sega super fan such as yourself should know that the Dreamcast has Windows CE!

Actually, I've never owned a Dreamcast! Only played it for 2 or 3 minutes, too!

 

However, I have been looking at Dreamcasts as recently as a few hours ago in person, so there really is no excuse when that little Windows logo is on the front bottom right.

 

I'm sure there might be a few other systems that have alternate operating systems that I'm not aware of, and I'm not sure if we can even count the PS3 100% now because after a certain update about a decade ago, we can't put a different OS on it without hacking it. Still, I think that it's probably worth mentioning, and I am sure there are still many unupdated PS3s out there, whether they are in a warehouse somewhere or in the possession of someone who just doesn't ever update the thing.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Magmavision2000 said:

Here's my criteria for a retro console:

 

1. It cannot have any official new games being released for it (duh!)

 

2. The system has to be unsupported for at least 10 years

 

3. If it has online capabilities, it must be no longer supported by the official company

 

4. It has to have an emulator

 

 

By these criteria, the PS2, Xbox, GameCube,  Dreamcast, and GBA era are the most recent retro consoles and the next generation will be completely retro in 2029-2030 (?). Of course, this is subject to change (I've heard that the PS3's PSN is the same as the PS4's PSN, so it may never go offline).

I just found a (slight) flaw in my list, I said the PS2 is retro, even though it's technically not by my criteria (the last PS2 game came out in 2013, therefore it will be retro in 2023).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Magmavision2000 said:

I just found a (slight) flaw in my list, I said the PS2 is retro, even though it's technically not by my criteria (the last PS2 game came out in 2013, therefore it will be retro in 2023).

Good catch. This reminds me of the Wii, as well, since I think that got a game last year or something, as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Steven Pendleton said:

This actually brings up another question. When do computers, and, more specifically, computer games, count as retro and not? They don't really have defined generations like consoles do, and even now, my build from October 2017 is maybe considered outdated, depending on who you talk to.

 

A console's retro-ness is often set by a combination of age and culture. But mostly culture. When the culture from which the console arose was popular fades away and is then reborn by marketing and fad some arbitrary years later. That's retro. Example: The 50's, 60's, 70's, or 80's are all of a sudden cool again. A bandwagon forms, marketing gears up, the fashion industry takes notice.. When things like that happen, consoles from the newly-popular era are suddenly and without question retro. They are swept up in the craze, swept up in nostalgia. All sorts of memorabilia arise surrounding "the time".

 

Computers are very different when it comes to defining "retro" and "generations". First of all that's right, they don't have defined generations. Nothing easily delineated. With some exceptions which are cartridge-based. The physical cartridge serves to root a system (C64, Atari400/800, Vic-20) in a generation paralleling their console cousins. Those three aforementioned systems are firmly 80's. And 80's is retro. Already done and gone through a resurrection.

 

Once you get away from toy cartridge systems most computers seem be defined by specific years and operating systems. Yup. Operating systems. Talk to a common man and he will immediately recognize or remember using Windows 3.1, 95, 98, or DOS. Sometimes even specific application software like Lotus 1-2-3 or the first version of Office. Often recalling arduous and tedious operations. Either that or he may recall certain years when the system was used on the job.

 

"Retro", "vintage", or "classic" computers may also be defined by advancements and progressions in technology. Example, the processor, 8086, 286, 386, 486, Pentium. Or certain turning points in the industry like MultiMedia PCs. Or 3D gaming PCs, the Voodoo years and early 3D acceleration. They're their own generation and fondly remembered by all neckbeards.

 

Certain games will also define a generation. Now we're extending what makes a console "retro" to computers. In computers it can be a single game that christens a system "retro". Doom and Duke Nuke'em 3D scream 1993-1995 louder than anything else.

 

A point regarding newer computer hardware. This sort of categorizing hasn't yet reached much past the Pentium II/III class of systems. There hasn't been enough time. And the lack of innovative software isn't helping much. After the late 1990's computers became department store commodities and personalities became rather drab. Never mind the beige box. "Beige box" means boring, and not because of the color.

 

This was only accelerated by the adoption of touch-screen mobile beginning 2007-2010'ish more or less. Despite computers having been made mainstream a decade or two ago, they never became easy to use like smartphones have. Computers have only become faster and faster and faster with little innovation in features. Make no mistake there have been (and continue to be) innovations in bus structures, cache configurations, core interconnectivity, storage density and all that. But no outwardly visible advancement. No user visible "futuristic-ness" no innovation. Professional users want speed. Consumers want flashy innovative features and social media. Computers continue to evolve speedwise very nicely. Bug-free features, forget about that!

 

Every PC sold today is essentially the same as one 7 or so years ago. And further back, slightly less so. And that doesn't help one define a generation around them or help determine when one becomes retro.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Keatah said:

 

A console's retro-ness is often set by a combination of age and culture. But mostly culture. When the culture from which the console arose was popular fades away and is then reborn by marketing and fad some arbitrary years later. That's retro. Example: The 50's, 60's, 70's, or 80's are all of a sudden cool again. A bandwagon forms, marketing gears up, the fashion industry takes notice.. When things like that happen, consoles from the newly-popular era are suddenly and without question retro. They are swept up in the craze, swept up in nostalgia. All sorts of memorabilia arise surrounding "the time".

 

Computers are very different when it comes to defining "retro" and "generations". First of all that's right, they don't have defined generations. Nothing easily delineated. With some exceptions which are cartridge-based. The physical cartridge serves to root a system (C64, Atari400/800, Vic-20) in a generation paralleling their console cousins. Those three aforementioned systems are firmly 80's. And 80's is retro. Already done and gone through a resurrection.

 

Once you get away from toy cartridge systems most computers seem be defined by specific years and operating systems. Yup. Operating systems. Talk to a common man and he will immediately recognize or remember using Windows 3.1, 95, 98, or DOS. Sometimes even specific application software like Lotus 1-2-3 or the first version of Office. Often recalling arduous and tedious operations. Either that or he may recall certain years when the system was used on the job.

 

"Retro", "vintage", or "classic" computers may also be defined by advancements and progressions in technology. Example, the processor, 8086, 286, 386, 486, Pentium. Or certain turning points in the industry like MultiMedia PCs. Or 3D gaming PCs, the Voodoo years and early 3D acceleration. They're their own generation and fondly remembered by all neckbeards.

 

Certain games will also define a generation. Now we're extending what makes a console "retro" to computers. In computers it can be a single game that christens a system "retro". Doom and Duke Nuke'em 3D scream 1993-1995 louder than anything else.

 

A point regarding newer computer hardware. This sort of categorizing hasn't yet reached much past the Pentium II/III class of systems. There hasn't been enough time. And the lack of innovative software isn't helping much. After the late 1990's computers became department store commodities and personalities became rather drab. Never mind the beige box. "Beige box" means boring, and not because of the color.

 

This was only accelerated by the adoption of touch-screen mobile beginning 2007-2010'ish more or less. Despite computers having been made mainstream a decade or two ago, they never became easy to use like smartphones have. Computers have only become faster and faster and faster with little innovation in features. Make no mistake there have been (and continue to be) innovations in bus structures, cache configurations, core interconnectivity, storage density and all that. But no outwardly visible advancement. No user visible "futuristic-ness" no innovation. Professional users want speed. Consumers want flashy innovative features and social media. Computers continue to evolve speedwise very nicely. Bug-free features, forget about that!

 

Every PC sold today is essentially the same as one 7 or so years ago. And further back, slightly less so. And that doesn't help one define a generation around them or help determine when one becomes retro.

 

A tasty answer. Honestly, I was a Mac guy until the early 2000s when they stopped making Mac games, and I also only turned 30 last month, so whenever people talk about old Windows computers I get lost fairly quickly.

 

I do actually have one old computer, though, and it is actually a cartridge-based one: the MSX2+. I have not actually used it since I got it last month since I only have a composite video cable for it, which the OSSC won't accept, so I'm not very familiar with it. I did test it on my CRT and it does work, but I'd rather not sit on the hard fake wood floor with a heavy-ass MSX on my lap just to use the CRT since I don't own any tables or chairs.

Edited by Steven Pendleton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure if this is applicable to the term "retro" but, for me, the thing that makes a system worth investing in and collecting for is the ability to use it once the manufacturer drops support and that question mark is becoming bigger and bigger with every generation.

 

If we take the Atari 2600, the real hardware works just as well as it did in 1977 and, whether you use original cartridges or a Harmony, the full games library is fully accessible.  This is more or less the same deal for most cartridge based systems as the games were able to be digitally archived from ROM dumps and preserved to run identically to the original cartridge.

 

If we move on to the disc based consoles, the situation becomes more problematic.  These systems have proprietary optical drives that fail over time; the games require a lot more storage; the transfer process from disc to iso is a lot more fallible; if you invest in a digital solution for your games, you can expect 60% of the games you want to play to work (at best) and the rest will be reliant on a used market where discs may or may not fully work (irrespective of condition).  This situation can also be applied to the home computers which are mostly reliant on "cracks" for their preservation where the coders were often more interested in showing off their demo skills to their mates than preserving the original game in its entirety.

 

And now we move on to the systems that rely on internet use for authentication and updates.  These systems pose the biggest problems and I imagine any use after the manufacturer drops online support will require the user to "jailbreak" the system for an alternative operating system that will run pirated games with all the relevant updates (with all the attendant issues of legality, reliability and storage (these games aren't getting any smaller!)).  An off-the-shelf console and a collection of disc games will be as good as useless.

 

My opinion is that feasible and lasting collectability and convenient access to a entire library of games ends with the PS2 and the original XBox as these are the last systems you can play without accessing the internet.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Steven Pendleton said:

Don't worry, I know nobody is going to agree with me and it doesn't bother me. I didn't know the Famicom had an internet thingy, but I'm definitely not a Nintendo guy and don't really care about their pre-Gamecube systems much at all.

 

Stilll...

 

did the Famicom games get streamed into your house from outer space? Everyone knows that outer space is super modern and awesome and that being on the Earth is for losers like me... right?

Nope no space exactly.  It was dial up internet service say like on par with old BBS software if I remember right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Steven Pendleton said:

I think the PS2 probably gets some decent use from people who do not have a backwards compatible PS3 but still want to play their PS2 games.

Ps2 games still make a decent shelf space in high Street shops in the UK that sell games. X box don't get the same love. Interestingly gamecube is starting to downgrade despite (or rather because) high prices. When I was still in the job of selling them, ps2 consoles were a good cheap device to sell people who just want 30 minutes of fun without the hassle of the internet or online gaming. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the definition by culture is also a noteworthy mention, if only to try and avoid it being solidified as a way of classification. Don't get me wrong, I was the sega equivalent to a Nintendoid growing up, and there is plenty of 2600 fan boys here who will gloss over the fact the channel F did most things first, but we are defined largely by nostalgia and our own age or availability. There was an article the other day about a guy who's girlfriend thought she recognised the American snes model "except black" turns out it was a Bulgarian nes clone that looked like a mega drive, but she had the same nostalgia feel  as anyone else gets over their selected nintendo/sega/atari machine. 

 

I don't think sega or atari fans drown out the rest in the way Nintendo ones do though, I'd trust them more to give an honest account of competitors. So many "history of gaming" series focuses firstly on some atari or arcade classics before juggernauting into hours of nes content. 

 

I think we'll start to see better recognised categorisation in this decade as we start hitting 50 years. 

Link to comment
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...