What is "classic"?

[videotwit]

Brave topic, Alex. This is one of those that usually starts a huge flame war...

 

Anyhow, I promise I'll keep it civil.

 

My take on the term "Classic" is simply consoles that were produced pre-crash (thus, pre-NES). I do agree that the symantics are problematic if you take into account the future of gaming, but I think the crash is a very important marking point in gaming history.

 

That's the rule I go by. Your generational breakdown is admittedly more accurate from a historical perspective, but it's so dang complex. That's the main thing that scares me. (Besides the fact that I really don't define todays games in the same way I define the "classics" -- but that's just all in my own head.)

[Alex]

Heheh, well I don't see any reason why there should be any flaming. It's just a matter of opinion.

 

I agree the crash was very important, but it presents its own set of problems. What do you consider the 7800, is it classic? Do you consider when it was produced or when it was really released (pre/post crash)? Also, wasn't the Famicom released in Japan before the US crash? So it would be considered classic by that definition, unless you take an ethnocentric viewpoint and only consider the US release.

 

I don't expect people to agree on all this, I just want to hear some more opinions.

[Callipygous]

Agree that terms like "Classic" and "Retro" are too relative to be really useful. Vaguely know what they mean, but not precisely. The first, second generation idea is good, but there will be arguements. Is the 7800 a 2nd or 3rd gen. Its an 8bit released years after it was finished. Is the turbogafx really a 16bit? Or an 8bit with a grafx processor. Think I read that somewhere . Some things do not fit neatly into a category, they are in generation 1.5 or 2.25.

 

Taking a clue from the name of this website, why not name the generations? Something like: 1rst- Pre-Ataric (okay, thats bad ), 2-The Atari Age, 3-The Nintendo Era etc. This makes it easier to fit the odd machine into a category. For instance, whats a 7800? Would say its in the Atari Age. It was a little retro even at introduction. Not a perfect fit, but feels more in the Atari Age than the Nintendo Era. This kind of "feel" approach would get more of a consensus for odd machines. So thats all you have to do. Name the categories and get a consensus

 

the positively pre-Ataric,

[videotwit]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alex:

I agree the crash was very important, but it presents its own set of problems. What do you consider the 7800, is it classic? Do you consider when it was produced or when it was really released (pre/post crash)? Also, wasn't the Famicom released in Japan before the US crash? So it would be considered classic by that definition, unless you take an ethnocentric viewpoint and only consider the US release.

---

 

Yup, you're correct that there are

tons of grey areas in my thinking. I get around them with my own completely arbitrary "rules." Take these for example: I equate the 7800 with the NES, thus it is "neo-classic" (even though I really hate that label), even though it was developed before the crash. The Famicom I also equate with the NES, thus like the 7800 it is neo-classic.

 

Does this make sense? No, not in a strict timeline-oriented methodology. It is more based on "feel" than anything else. I know I'm not being much help in banging out strict definitions of these area, but you did ask opinions, and that's all these are.

[Alex]

This has been discussed many times on Usenet and elsewhere, but what do you consider a "classic" system? How do you categorize systems? By processor? Year? Gameplay? Do you use the term "NeoClassic"?

 

Personally, I think terms like "classic" are ultimately problematic, because the X-Box and Gamecube will one day be "classics" to today's children. Atari systems will be "antiques". "Classic" is really a constantly evolving genre.

 

So, how about we break videogames down into more defined eras...

 

First Generation: Pong and it's varitations, beginning with the Odyssey 1 in 1971. Ends around 1976, although some First Generation style systems are produced after that.

 

Second Generation: The first programmable systems. Fairchild Channel F, RCA Studio II, Atari 2600, Atari 5200, Intellivision, Colecovision, Vectrex, Arcadia, etc.

 

Third Generation: The second wave of programmable systems. NES, SMS, Atari 7800.

 

Fourth Generation: 16-Bit systems. SNES, Genesis, Turbograf-x.

 

Fifth Generation: 3D gaming arrives. Saturn, Playstation, N64.

 

Sixth Generation: Modern consoles. Playstation 2, X-Box, Gamecube.

 

Comments? Obviously this list is not all-inclusive and doesn't even touch computers. Just curious as to what you guys think beyond just saying "classic". Interesting that as the industry has matured there are fewer competitors...

[liveinabin]

i see the leap from 16 to 32 bit, ie. dedicated 3d hardware et al.

But how do we justify this leap to '6th' generation. PS2, Xbox and Gamecube games only differ from PS1 and Saturn games in purely cosmetic senses.

I'd hold off that 6th generation until something REALLY immersive comes along.

[Alex]

Good point. I guess they don't really do anything new, they just do more and faster. I suppose third and fourth generations are somewhat alike as well except for power, although it would look silly to to have the 7800 and SNES in the same generation. Maybe in the grander scale they won't look so distant one day.

[Mister VCS]

In my opinion, the Colecovision is a "third generation system" in one line with the

Atari 7800 and Intellivision (16-Bit!)

 

My list:

 

1st: Pong, Odyssey 1 etc.

 

2nd: Odyssey2 (G7000/ 7400), Atari VCS 2600, Hanimex 2650, Vectrex

 

3rd: Colecovison, Atari 5200, Intellivision, NES, SMS, Atari 7800

 

4th: SNES, Genisis, PC-Engine, NEO Geo, Turbo-Grafx

 

5th: Playstation, Atari Jaguar, Saturn

 

6th: PS2, Dreamcast

 

Comments are welcome!

[liveinabin]

Even though i'm not major fans of either, I'd have to put the NES and SMS in a higher bracket then Intellivision and 7800.

Purely for the complexity of games like Zelda - they really are a measurable leap over the others in that bracket.

[the_shrubb]

The way I see it, a system is a classic if the company that owns the console no longer produces it, and the system still warrants a purchase, and is still worthy of play. So I can consider my TG16, Jag, 3DO, etc. classics; whereas I don't consider my, oh... 32x (I know its an addon, but it's late, and I can't think) to be a classic. I instead consider my 32x to be a collectible, which sits and collects dust, but I won't sell it.

 

It's almost to the point where I can consider my Dreamcast a classic. Sega not producing consoles... sad, sad times we live in.

 

Anyway, I digress...

 

As for the SMS and NES, I agree that they go in the same generation as the 7800. Afterall, same time period, even if they were technologically superior.

[rolenta]

In an upcoming Electronic Gaming Monthly article I describe classic games as:

 

Most historians and collectors agree that the classic years of videogames, sometimes called the golden age, occurred from 1976 to 1984, although there isn’t any firm reason why. Lee Seitz, webmaster of the popular Classic Video Games Nexus, seems to sum it up best:

"I basically consider any video game up to 1984ish to be a part of the classic period. Many companies were willing to take more risks with the games they released before the Crash than they were after. You have to wonder if Q*bert, for example, wasn't conceived until the mid-1990s, would it have been released when all the other games seem to be one-on-one fighters?"

[mos6507]

The style of a movie like The Wizard of Oz or Casablanca is markedly different from the types of films produced in the swinging 60s or the R-rated 70s.

 

Every era is marked by a different style of media, and videogames are no exception. (Whether this will hold true for the future since technology has reached such a plateau in 3D graphics, I don't know. Aside from the eventual critical-mass of broadband multiplayer networking on consoles I don't see a next big shift in game design anytime soon.)

 

For those of us who really like the '77-'84 style of gaming, I'd consider that classic in the same way that the output of Hollywood reached a creative zenith between 1937-41.

 

To follow the movie analogy even more, when TV entered the scene, the prominence of movies as the dominant form of entertainment diminished.

 

Similarly, the erosion of the arcade industry in the last few years (which gave birth to videogames) is symptomatic of the ever increasing shift of videogames away from "twitch" and more towards a more computer-game virtual-reality approach.

 

So to say that all videogame eras are created equal really isn't true. Big changes have occured and while there have been surface-level improvements, there are game concepts which have also been almost completely abandoned for the sake of "progress".

 

Just as nobody will every be able to recreate the idealistic 3-strip technicolor world of The Wizard of Oz, nobody will ever release a truly new minimalistic style game ala Pitfall or Kaboom (unless it's a remake or rerelease). And all 2D games in general are almost dead aside from the portable niche. Old styles are accepted within their historical context, and cherished by some such as us, but are pretty much confined to the past in favor of a new aesthetic.

 

So I really think it has less to do with pure nostalgia keyed to a person's generation and more to do with the fact that styles change. By and large you can not get an equivalent gaming experience from a modern game as you can from a classic just as you can't get the aura of classic Hollywood from a crass modern ride movie like Titanic.

[ubersaurus]

I thought similar lines to your listing, although I feel computers deserve a seperate list from consoles, as do arcade machines. My major question is, what would you fit the Tennis for Two under, Computer, Arcade, or Other? Handhelds are another odd one. they are consoles, but could you even refer to them under the same listings? Those are problematic, for even as programmable portabels were being made, the dedicated ones were still around, and are still around, due to their low price.

[Mindfield]

I sort of categorize the generations by the competition it engendered, like thus:

 

First Generation (1975-77): Atari's Home Pong (and kin, clones, ripoffs, etc), Magnavox Odessey 1, Fairchild Channel F, Emmerson Arcadia, RCA Studio II

Second Generation (1978-82): Atari VCS, Mattel Aquarius/Intellivision, Colecovision, CGE Vectrex, Bally Astrocade, VTech CreatiVision/**** Smith Wizzard, Entex AdventureVision

Third Generation (1983-86): Atari 5200, Nintendo Entertainment System, Sega Master System

Fourth Generation (1987-1992): Consoles: Atari 7800, Sega Genesis, Super Nintendo Entertainment System, NEC TurboGrafix 16. Portables: Atari Lynx, Sega Game Gear, Nintendo Game Boy, NEC TurboExpress

Fifth Generation[/i] (1993-1998): Consoles: 3DO (3DO, Panasonic, Goldstar), Atari Jaguar, Nintendo 64, Sega 32X/Sega Saturn, Sony PlayStation-X. Portables: Nintendo Game Boy Pocket/Colour Game Boy/Game Boy Color

Sixth Generation (1999-2001): Consoles: Sega Dreamcast, Sony PlayStation 2, Microsoft Xbox, Nintendo Gamecube. Portables: Nintendo Game Boy Advance, Ban Dai WonderSwan/Color

 

As far as my definition of "Classic" is concerned -- I'd say it's any system up to and including the third generation. Essentially, all the "firsts" -- those initial efforts from newcomers to the console and handheld arena. Fourth and Fifth generation to me isn't quite classic yet, but still falls into the "retro" scene, with the exception of the handheld scene, which really only came into its own in the fourth console generation. You can't deny the Lynx wasn't an influential and classic machine... you might even say the GameGear was classic, as it was essentially a portable Master System for which many of the same games existed.

 

When it comes right down to it though, if it instills within you that bittersweet melancholy of nostalgia and longing for the "good ol' days" then that's a good enough definition of "classic" in my books.

 

(Um ... hey. What's with the censoring of poor Mr. Smith? Okay, so he was unfortunately named **** . (Stop that! D-I-C-K, okay?!) Anyway, y'all probably know what I'm on about here anyway)

 

Dickey **** **** .

 

I'll take Famous Phalluses for 200, Alex.

 

[ 11-15-2001: Message edited by: Mindfield ]

[Atari-Jess]

for me classic gaming starts where i started playing video games. 1989-1991 or so. just a couple years after the NES came out. Later on small children will see all video games a classic gaming just think of it then! 3d holographics! but im starting to go all odd... ill stop now.

[Jun Kazama]

to me classic gaming splits the sega genesis in half every thing b4 the 3D sonic is classic and every thing after is modern gaming of coarse this will eventually change in the future but you got to admit when the first 3D game came out there was a big division of every thing 2D that came before it and every thing after it or maybe thats just my openion

 

[ 11-17-2001: Message edited by: Jun Kazama ]

[liveinabin]

yeah, but when do you define '3d games' as starting. Novalogics 'Mercenary' on the c64 was pretty convincing 3d, as was the Star Wars arcade machine. Filled polygons, too, were around way before the genesis.

 

For me, classic gaming is anything from the era where game design mattered more than 'graphics engines' - and when a killer game could be written by one person

[Ze_ro]

I think anything about 2.5 generations ago pretty much can be considered classic. Why 2.5? Well, if we're entering the 6th generation right now, I think the SNES and Genesis will become classic very soon (Some may consider them classic right now, but I see them as teetering on the edge of nostalgic).

 

Anyone care to comment on the future of video games? Personally, I'm not sure there'll be a 7th generation. At least, it won't seem like it. The lines between computer and console are becoming so blurred that they will soon become almost indistinguisable.

 

Right now we have Dreamcast and PS2 running Linux, internet access and online gaming is becoming popular for consoles, memory storage devices (first memory cards, now hard drives) are standard, keyboards and mouses are available, and CDs and DVDs are now the medium of choice on consoles.

 

On the computer side, things are generally being dumbed-down so that people don't have to worry about things such as IRQ's and DMA's and such. USB is making peripherals easy and more universal, CD's are the medium of choice (Floppies are almost extinct), and pre-made computers such as the iMac are popular and so simple to use that you pretty much don't even have to learn how to use them. Soon enough we'll have machines that will play games as well as spell check our essays... it's only a matter of time.

 

(Sadly, if you look back at systems like the Commodore 64, you'll see we've taken the long road to get to this point... personally I blame crappy 8088 PC's for this, but that's a whole nother discussion)

 

--Zero

[ubersaurus]

Escape from the Mindmaster was technically 3d as well.