What is Retro/Classic to you?

[peteer01]

I guess to me, if you can pop the games in and start playing within a few seconds it's "retro". And that is what I still prefer to this day...

So, Pac Man CE DX and Geometry Wars would both count as Retro? I also think you kind of summed up what I love about Treyarch's Zombie maps. You start playing them instantly. There's no saving, there's no ending...you just play until you can't keep up any more, and you see how far you can go.

 

Not sure if I would call Zombies "retro", but it definitely has that pure gaming quality to it that I really enjoy.

[WTF]

Honestly. I think we don't have a retro phase in gaming as obvious as people think. When I think true retro it's arcade games because that's gaming that's not coming back here in the form it was. Most of what we consider 'retro' are basically what could be played on an arcade machine. Basic platforms, 16/32 bit games and the like.

 

Classic games are basically like vintage games. Games that stand the test of time just like classic films. You can still watch a lot of Lang, Truffaut or Kurosawa and still appreciate the film-making process in those films. Same goes for the games. It also has to appeal to the current generation for at least the gameplay. Not to mention 'classic' usually means that it adheres to a particular standard.

 

I believe we need to stop calling the older games retro because retrogaming exists with modern games that are released even today. One can argue that MeatBoy is retro, one can argue that Chinese RPG released last December on the MegaDrive is retro (Yep it was released in 2010). We have genres and games both old and new fit within those.

 

To me what's truly retro is something that technically cannot be replicated in the same form on modern consoles due to various reasons. The thing we currently consider retro-gaming is just a genre that could use a different name since 80 years from now everything we play currently would be retro.

[RockyRan]

I have a hard time considering N64/PSX/Saturn "retro". I just consider those systems "old" for now. To me, "retro" is anything before them.

[Mal]

Are they retro when the next gen consoles come out?

 

By the time that happens, it most likely will be about 20 years since they appeared on the scene and about 15-10 when they got replaced by the next generation.

[GunFlame]

For me, Retro is anything that is 16-Bit or less. Why? Because those games had limitations on them that really didn't exist in the next generation of consoles.

 

It's hard for me to say that a predominantly 3D graphics capable console - like the PS1 and N64 - is retro. They had the visual base of today's current games, the only difference being scale and poly count. It's the same with the style of play and gameplay mechanics. With Analog Sticks being brought in more commonly, and large save files being available to the player. They're not retro games, just early versions of what we have now.

 

A retro game is something that carries themes and style that is no longer dominant. That's why I would say games 16-Bit and earlier can only be classed as this.

 

Classic games are different. But I believe that a Classic can only be considered so, if the game is actually as good in the present day, as it was in the past. So they can only really be judged perhaps a generation later. I can't really think of too many games that have been released this generation that will live up to that 'Classic' title that they may have been given already.

 

Stuff like Uncharted, Gears of War and God of War - all though excellent now - may just seem dated a few years later. You could even say that the original Uncharted game already shows some signs of age.

 

I think the only exception to this, would be if the game itself was groundbreaking in some way. If it did something that helped shape the genre or define gaming. Then it could also be considered a classic. For example:

 

Super Mario World - It's a Classic due to what it is, but also how playable it is now. Its quality is no different and its style is timeless.

 

Doom - Dated in gameplay mechanics, this ages it a lot. But it's impact on gaming cannot be denied. It was and is still, massive.

Edited August 30, 2011 by GunFlame

[Mr W Phallus]

I'd probably change it depending on who I was talking to. With people who don't really play video games but did in their childhood, I'd probably talk about the games they played as kids as retro which could even stretch into PS2 days, but with people who are a bit more knowledgeable I'd probably move further back into the 16-Bit era.

 

I like GunFlame's line of reasoning though. If we were to standardise retro I'd go with that.

[Yantelope]

I was listening to the radio at lunch and they kicked off the retro hour. I was all pumped for some new order or some Cure but the first song was Pearl Jam. That was a truly sad day in my life. Moral of the story is retro changes and surprise! You're old.

 

Much the same way I think lots of kids would call the N64 or PSX retro now considering it's been 15 years since they were released. That's right, 15 years. That means if you met a 7th grader the N64 was out before he was born.

[MasterDex]

It ain't retro unless it's 16k.

[Yantelope]

It aint retro if it aint RF modulated. B)

[Battra92]

It aint retro if it aint RF modulated. B)

 

That needs to go on a shirt with an RF modulator. Whomever does that, all I ask is a free shirt.

[RockyRan]

For me, Retro is anything that is 16-Bit or less. Why? Because those games had limitations on them that really didn't exist in the next generation of consoles.

 

It's hard for me to say that a predominantly 3D graphics capable console - like the PS1 and N64 - is retro. They had the visual base of today's current games, the only difference being scale and poly count. It's the same with the style of play and gameplay mechanics. With Analog Sticks being brought in more commonly, and large save files being available to the player. They're not retro games, just early versions of what we have now.

 

A retro game is something that carries themes and style that is no longer dominant. That's why I would say games 16-Bit and earlier can only be classed as this.

 

Classic games are different. But I believe that a Classic can only be considered so, if the game is actually as good in the present day, as it was in the past. So they can only really be judged perhaps a generation later. I can't really think of too many games that have been released this generation that will live up to that 'Classic' title that they may have been given already.

 

Stuff like Uncharted, Gears of War and God of War - all though excellent now - may just seem dated a few years later. You could even say that the original Uncharted game already shows some signs of age.

 

I think the only exception to this, would be if the game itself was groundbreaking in some way. If it did something that helped shape the genre or define gaming. Then it could also be considered a classic. For example:

 

Super Mario World - It's a Classic due to what it is, but also how playable it is now. Its quality is no different and its style is timeless.

 

Doom - Dated in gameplay mechanics, these age it a lot. But it cannot it's impact on gaming was and is still massive.

 

 

This. All of this. In its entirety.

[Yantelope]

This. All of this. In its entirety.

 

The only problem with this is you can draw the same lines between PS1 and PS2. There may not have been a greater jump in graphics as there was from 16-bit to the 3D next gen systems but that isn't necessarily speaking to the age of the system. By the same logic nothing should be considered retro after the NES because it was so far ahead of Atari.

Edited August 30, 2011 by Yantelope

[fuchikoma]

I don't have a final answer, but I think the definition has to change over time to reflect the gaming landscape... *wishy-washy*

 

Err... I mean, I'm not sure if I considered it in the PSX/PS1 era, but I think I'd have said NES since it's so very different. That's 2 generations. Then in PS2 era, I figured it was the old 2D games I grew up with (and Mode7/SuperFX!) We're onto the third generation of mainly-3D consoles now though, and even 2-ish for handhelds so I can't say it's old 2D games forever. So I think it's really 2 generations ago so far.

 

I'm not sure why though. It could be that it's the old generation before the old generation. It could be because by modern standards, 3D without texture filtering looks brutally primitive and crude. Maybe it's because most 18 year olds probably don't remember a time before the PSX era was dominant (even though I'm sure many have played older games somehow.)

 

So if we saw shorter generational gaps, or went without any striking aesthetic differences for a generation or two, I'm not sure what I'd call "retro," but for now, 2 generations ago seems to stick pretty well though history. When I think about it, even in the SNES era, you could call Intellivision, Colecovision, and Atari games retro... Or in the NES era, I guess you'd have Ralph Baer's Odyssey and Simon - but that's really pushing the edges of what you'd call a video game.

[fuchikoma]

On that note, I'd probably buy a book called "Retro-Gaming in the NES Era."

[Pojodin]

"Retro" for me means that a generation of consoles automatically gets added to the nostalgia pile once they are two generations behind.

 

That's essentially my line of thought as well.

[ChiltonGaines]

I guess I can't compare to GunFlame's solid post; I was just going to say Spyro the Dragon, Streets of Rage, Vectorman, and Comix Zone.

[Yantelope]

I guess I just have the musical definition firmly locked in my head so I tend to think anything from over a decade ago. Technically 90's music is considered Retro right now. I think this means that SNES and N64 gens are retro and older than that fits into "classic" or "oldies".