RF Generation Message Board

I have been asked this, would you believe, "What counts as retro in gaming?". In my opinion, a retro gaming system is a system (computer/operating system or console) that has lost its shelf life for more than 5 years. Meaning that the system has to had no new games made for it officially and is not sold as brand new in retail for more than 5 years.

Does anyone have a different opinion? Does anyone think that there's a fault with my definition?

Please tell

To me a "retro console" (if there is such a thing) is everything from 2 generations ago or more. Right now that would be the 5th generation and older.

When I speak of video game "generations", I'm refering to the way they're organised in Wikipedia. So the 5th generation would be the PSone, N64, Saturn, Jaguar and 3DO.

To me "retro" in general means something that was once popular, faded into obscurity and is once again gaining popularity, and for the most part should be at least 20 or 30 years old. But with technology since it changes so rapidly, those numbers of years do not really apply, 15 years since the item was released is probably more realistic.

For video games, anything before the Atari 2600 is definitely retro, the NES and SMS would also be retro. The SNES and Genesis era stuff is just starting to become "retro" in my eyes. Everything newer than those isn't "retro" to me. Sure, systems like the PS1 and N64 are old and outdated, but they haven't faded into obscurity and come back to popularity yet. So I wouldn't consider them retro system yet.

I don't think that the N64 will ever fade out all that much. Most of my generation has one, and still play it to this day. Well, I guess the same can be said with every console, right?

I'd agree with gamepopper in setting a date on when the console becomes classic or retro, but 5 years is far too many. I'd say perhaps 7-10 years, but I would need to do some research. :P

I don't think consoles (from now on) will ever fade into obscurity anymore. They'll just stay popular.

SNES and Genesis is where the retro line gets a little hazy for me. Pseudo-retro certainly, but I think they need to marinade a little more before they become proper retro.

Think of consoles like music.

70s are big band
80s are oldies.
90s are more like classic rock
00s are not exactly new your still going to hear it with other current releases.

Maybe not the best of comparisons but it made sense in my head.

My idea of five years came from the Dreamcast, the system was discontinued in 2001, but the first time that I heard people classify it as retro was back in 2006.

Hmmm I sense the lack of middle ground between current gen and retro. Maybe as more years pass and more systems are created, played, supported, and retired, THEN we all have a clearer idea.
For now though, I'd say retro game systems consist of 16-bit systems and earlier since 32-bit CD based games really changed things dramatically.

20 years I'd say. Cars are considered classics, computers vintage and a generation of kids have grown to adulthood since. In a 5 year or 10 year cycle, the PS2 would already be considered retro yet it's sold in stores. The N64, PS1 and DC were sold during the first few years of the PS2's life. Today's twenty year olds remember the SNES and Genesis, so it can't be retro if the youngest adults had them, it at least has to be something from before their time.

I agree with NES_Rules and Bad Enough Dude.  I feel that SNES and Genesis are somewhat retro, but still have their following.  PS1/N64, etc. era up is still relatively popular

NES

I'd have to agree with Tan on 20 years being considered retro.

For me, there are actually three categories I place my consoles under:  Retro, Classic, and Modern.   Retro games and consoles that fall under this category are those from the 80's and earlier.  Classic games and consoles are those that tried to keep it going during the 90s.  And, finally, the modern consoles are those that were introduced in the 21st century and current consoles. 

That's how I see it anyway. 

Such a subjective question.  Basically, any system that you get nostalgic for.  Also, if it is dead, it is fair game.

Anything before the PS1.

I often think that anything that you can't buy at Game Stop any more is retro, so really anything that didn't sell over a million copies that came out over six months ago.

They recently played a retro-game of Devils vs. Penguins in Hockey so retro probably has a wider definition.  In that game, they dressed up in uniforms from 1980s.  I would retro refers to going back to a style that was once the norm but no longer is the norm, but still carries some attraction that wants you to do that again.

Anything pre-CD-ROM for me. I understand that it is a floating term, but that's not what the thread title asks.

Let me clarify a bit:

At one time Coleco, Atari, Apple, Amiga, etc. gaming was norm whereas nowadays everything is playstation, nintendo wii, xbox, and PC so those that were popular back then if you play games on those systems you are doing retro-gaming using a retro-gaming system.

To me its everything up to the Nintendo 64. I see the N64 as the turning point. It introduced analog control as well as massive 3d environments and basically paved the way for modern gaming, however it also had that classic gaming charm and used carts... so I like to include the N64 as the last "classic" style gaming console that almost could have been included in modern system ranks.

I see the Dreamcast as the obvious first modern system. I mean the graphics are beautiful and high end pc quality or arcade quality. the graphics easily rival some of the best stuff on ps2 gamecube or xbox, theres just something about the polish of dc games...

So N64 is the last retro system for me. DC is modern. DC also the first system to make a big push in online gaming. other prior systems dabbled but dc came with modem installed.

I have to say though that maybe i should split it in 3 categories... Maybe say 2600 up to Coleco is vintage, then from NES to Sega CD classic, and then 3DO to N64 retro :P

Those basic systems with games built in before the 2600 can be called historic maybe :)

Good point about carts and N64 but not sure if analog control was introduced by N64.  I still use N64, Atari 5200 (analog controls), Atari 800, Coleco, and others with cartridges.  To me instantly booting into a game is needed for the most part since I'm playing games with relatives and friends and nobody likes to wait around for "loading..." crap.  I have to applaud Nintendo for pushing cartridges even during time when CD media took over.  CDs are good for PC software where you can just download it into your hard drive but for dynamic usage not good for gaming (unless you have the patience).  Then on top of that, they don't have covers (unlike floppy disks) so are easily scratched.  I have so many CD games that are unusable but all my cartridges are working great.  From programming perspective, you have direct access to program/data instantly since cartridges are just a type of memory.  I'm surprised they haven't switched to flash on modern systems.

I guess vintage/classic/etc. can all be considered retro.  One thing about many retro systems is the RF output which doesn't exist on modern consoles.  This brings me to my point why I joined this forum-- I was looking for a solution for an ATSC based LCD TV to hook to an RF-based retro game system.  Anyone find a solution to this?

I love carts too but I have to think Nintendo made a mistake not making N64 cd based. Ya a bit of loading but say if they used a 4X cd drive would not have been bad at all and the games could have really been incredible and Nintendo would have never lost Squaresoft and others to Sony. And then Nintendo compounded this mistake with the disk drive flop, lol. instead of messing around with carts and disks they should have just made the darn thing CD.. They would have beat Sony probably.

As far as analog, I guess what I mean is the N64 was the first controller to use analog in a traditional sense, a controller styled around the stick and the stick being high precision, i dont think the old consoles really had this. they had analog but it was very primitive?

"Retro" to me is everything before the Super Nintendo (I'd consider the Jaguar retro too but not the CD-i or 3DO)
Everything else before this gaming gen is just old.

I tend to think anything that can't be played on current systems is retro. You can play Gamecube games on the Wii, (most) Xbox games on the 360, and PS1/2 games on most PS3s. Hell, PS2's are still so widespread and common I still count that as a current console as well.

Another good guideline would be any system that had games for it released on PSN/XBL/Virtual Console/DSware could be considered retro. For example, Game Gear games are on DSware now, so that would make it officially retro to me.

I think when it comes down to it, retro is whatever strikes a chord of nostalgia to you. If I see a stack of PS1 games, I likely won't give it a second glance unless I spot a game from a series I collect on top. If I see a stack of NES/SNES/Gameboy/Sega CD or Genesis games, I'm diving in headfirst since that's the era that I grew up in.

If they had stuck with memory devices, they would have had a much more efficient system and in the long-run beaten the competitors.  Of course, I'm not biased toward a particular console developer since I'm looking at it more from a technological point of view rather than marketing.  A little foresight goes a long way and would also have helped prevent so much garbage from saturating the market.  You have so many incompatible systems out there and so much scratched/partially working older systems due to usage of cd/dvd lasers/media. 


Maybe you're right about making the analog more precise but why not digital all the way.  Regardless of which analog controller you use, you end up with uncertainty as to how much you went in which direction.  On the other hand, on digital controllers (like joysticks), you know the exact state of where you are-- 100% accurate and control.