Board 8 > Let's say you have a youtube channel where you play "retro" games...

(+) Yeah! (+)

(or something like that) ...where would you decide to draw the line at what counts as "retro"?

I'm not asking what should be a strict definition of a "retro game" in general, but if you were producing content where the theme was "retro games" at what generation would you consider the limit to be? On a personal level.

Keep in mind you're not necessarily going in order; for example you're not playing a bunch of NES games and then moving on to SNES games which I feel would make it easier to say "that's too much" when deciding where the line would be. Let's say that each week a random game is chosen, and it could be from any gen that you would consider a retro game generation. So you have to decide up front what counts.

PS2 is where I draw the line.

Every person's definition of "retro" is "consoles that were out when I started playing video games" and modern is "everything that released after I was already into games". That's why everyone has their own cutoff.

N64/PS1 definitely is and 360/Wii definitely isn't, GCN/PS2 is borderline.

But this is only because I'm in my 30s lmao, my nieces absolutely see 360 games as retro games

Also pre-NES stuff isn't retro, it's antique :p

From my recent YouTube watch trends 360/Wii/PS3 is the new cut-off IMO

i'd randomly bust out a fortnite video just to make people rage

Dante posted...

i'd randomly bust out a fortnite video just to make people rage

OG fortnite counts as it wasn't even the same game

The PS2 gen. There's no way the PSWii60 is retro when it only really died off like 11 years ago

20 years old is retro, so you've got 1 more year until Wii is retro

I think some early PSWii60 games are okay to count as retro. Like, I ain't calling Xenoblade or TLOU "retro," but maybe like, Mario Galaxy or Uncharted 1.

PS2 and GameCube are pretty comfortably retro to me at this point.

Underleveled posted...

I think some early PSWii60 games are okay to count as retro. Like, I ain't calling Xenoblade or TLOU "retro," but maybe like, Mario Galaxy or Uncharted 1.

PS2 and GameCube are pretty comfortably retro to me at this point.

I'd agree with this. I think it's fair to call Wii Sports retro at this point.

When I was a teen in the late 2000s PS1 / N64 was also already considered retro. It's pretty much always about two generations ahead I feel.

Retro is a vibe and not a specific cutoff

I would say 20 years. Which I guess means just before PS3 release?

Minecraft and GTA5 are 360 games

I'd accept PS2 / GCN / XBOX as retro. There are design elements in most games from that era which would come in for a lot of criticism today (or just feel alien to a modern gamer).

before and after cave story

Yeah going with PS2 generation as well for now.

Retro is 2D games or blocky ass looking 3D games and it's a look not about release date

if forced to set a limit, hard stop at 2002, with the exception of the Game Boy Advance

I'm weird in that although I think the Dreamcast being retro is completely indisputable, the other consoles from that generation are a bit iffier. at least the first couple years however, when the graphics and gameplay still weren't that far off the Dreamcast, yeah sure. I think a key part of the retro definition is the presence of arcade-style gameplay from the major publishers.

this means, more generally:

Paratroopa1 posted...

Retro is a vibe and not a specific cutoff

Anything 8/16-bit or with polygonal graphics. The game doesn't have to be old.

definitely PS2 era at this point. IDK man 360 era just seems sickening to consider Retro

If retro is a vibe Wii is definitely it

My rule is if it's old enough to vote in the United States, it's definitely retro. Past that is up for debate.

I would say if it's at least 20 years old (or designed to look like something that old), then it qualifies as retro.

PS3/360/Wii aren't quite there yet but they will be soon

I mean, Ive always thought 15 years (at least for the past 10 years or so that has been my line) but it definitely skews as time goes on. I considered Chrono Trigger retro in 2003 and it wasnt even close to a decade old at that point.

Anything first released before January 1, 2000, regardless of system. Best to set a hard fixed rule to avoid any potential complaints in the future.

SNES and earlier. Modern indie games that are made with retro mentalities are also acceptable.

I personally don't consider anything modern to be 'retro' because there's something sort of inherent to the actual time period it was created that isn't easily retraced over, but which time period is actually 'retro' to me is a fuzzy line, especially for games that have been ongoing since their release

Pre 2007 is retro

The Wii/360/PS3 are approaching 20 years old. Were nearly as far from them as they were from the NES games, and those were retro then.

Hbthebattle posted...

The Wii/360/PS3 are approaching 20 years old. Were nearly as far from them as they were from the NES games, and those were retro then.

Is GTA 5 a retro game?

The jump from 2D to 3D in the mid 90s was such a big leap it kinda left a hard line at the time for what looked retro. Since then all we've really got is better looking 3D.

Let's be honest here. A PS5 game feels similar enough in controls, general feel, and quality of life features to a PS3 game. The graphics are just better.

The PS2/Wii era was really the last before things like auto saving, checkpoints, and health regeneration became plentiful. Ergo, I think that's the true cutoff. But there's also a fine line between 2D retro and 3D retro. I don't think I'll ever consider the PS3 retro because it's far more similar to its successors than its predecessors.

my kneejerk is N64/PS1 but it's really probably gamecube/ps2 at this point

N64/PS1

I don't care how much time has passed, GC/PS2 games aren't drastically different enough from modern games to be retro to me. It's more about how old they look/feel that determines if they're retro or not imo

I could maybe budge on GC/PS2 but certainly not PS3/360/Wii

MZero posted...

I don't care how much time has passed, GC/PS2 games aren't drastically different enough from modern games to be retro to me. It's more about how old they look/feel that determines if they're retro or not imo

Really? I think the GC/PS2 era had a REALLY unique look and feel to them that qualifies as retro at this point. I active seek out modern games that try to emulate the look and feel of games, especially platformers, on those systems.

Every game used to be a muddled brown 3rd person cover shooter, that's retro

Underleveled posted...

Really? I think the GC/PS2 era had a REALLY unique look and feel to them that qualifies as retro at this point. I active seek out modern games that try to emulate the look and feel of games, especially platformers, on those systems.

Might depend on the game, but for example Melee feels much closer to Ultimate than it does to 64 imo

"Retro games'" is like "Classic Hollywood" for me. It's a term that covers a specific time frame (with disputed end points to be fair), not a constantly sliding scale.

I agree with Mzero on this

Can't really see PS2 era ever feeling "retro" cause it's not far enough removed from the style today. Stuff now looks nicer but it's all on the same tier and similar stylistically. Maybe way in the future there will be some sort of jump in realistic looking graphics but it's not here yet-- to say nothing of the PS3 era.

Eh, I feel like I could tell the difference between a PS2 game and a PS3 game

Early PS2 anyway

Like KH1 and FFX don't look like PS3 games

I feel like in the 1990s, any game pre-Super Mario was retro to me. That's only a gap of like 10-13 years.

MacArrowny posted...

Is GTA 5 a retro game?

That game is 12 years old and had much of its success come eventually from its cross-gen ports. So, no, but ask again in 5 or so years.

To me, the idea of "retro" is all about, like, a "lost" past that can't be returned to. The games that are considered retro games are that way because they were created in an era where games looked and sounded and felt a different way and when the whole set of rules were different, and they'll never really be made that kind of way ever again, except when people deliberately make something retro to try to reclaim that lost past.

To me, GC/PS2/Xbox games have hit the point at which they are retro - they have a specific flavor to them that no longer exists. Games don't generally look or sound or feel like they do anymore, even when given HD remasters (indeed, the fact that they receive HD remasters at all is a good indicator, though not a sure thing). They were created at a very different time that we can't go back to. They are not part of our cultural present, so they are retro.

I would not yet put most PS3/Xbox 360 into this category and I don't know when I would. Of course, I do come from a background of being a 90's kid so that influences my viewpoint somewhat - there are probably people that DO see these games as part of a 'lost past'. But I think these games tend to be fairly representative of modern standards. Someone might disagree since they lived through this era as a child and these games feel totally different to them, but I think they lack the vibe. Something like GTAV especially isn't retro - it's still very much part of the present and still will be after GTAVI's release. Minecraft isn't retro either, despite people mistaking it for such because it has blocky graphics and they played it as a child - it is still part of the present, though I imagine there are some fans that long for the times of Minecraft 1.0 or whatever, which might arguably be retro.

This is just one definition, but it's the way I see it. If it's something that we're mourning the loss of and trying to return to, it's retro. If it's still something that we're merely replicating and iterating on and have not 'lost', it's not retro.

PS2/GCN

i would say you can also do early PS3/360 games, ones where the devs hadn't really figured out "HD Gaming" yet

like, Crysis is not a retro game, but maybe Kameo Elements of Power is?

Yeah I could see some arguments for some early PS3/360 games or ones of a particular stock. Wii's the same way. Wii is kind of touching on the idea of being retro for me more just because we don't really do motion controls anymore

I don't think there's any problem with considering at least some PS3/360 games "retro". It was a different time and you can tell. Minecraft isn't the same as it was at the time.

BlueCrystalTear posted...

The PS2/Wii era was really the last before things like auto saving, checkpoints, and health regeneration became plentiful.

This pinpoints exactly why I feel PS2/Gamecube/Xbox era feels retro, but PS3/Wii/360 era doesn't. Memory cards, manual saving, almost entirely offline, no DLC, no achievements, etc. Even the games feels different. I remember playing Yakuza and being kinda stunned that it feels like "a PS2 game" despite being made recently.