And what category does the PS2, Wii, Xbox, Nintendo DS/3DS fit into? They aren’t retro, but they’re not really “modern” either
Edit:sorry about posting 4 times, it kept telling me that it had a correction error
You must log in or register to comment.
In my view, systems without an HDMI output or which default to a 4:3 aspect ratio are retro. But I don’t expect everyone else to share this opinion, and that’s totally fine. 🙂
That’s actually a great distinction.
The first version of 360 didn’t have HDMI tho… While some versions of GC had digital video out, and PS2 could do 1080i with some games.
PS2 defaults to 4:3, digital out can be things besides HDMI, and the vast majority of 360 consoles sold had HDMI out. If you want to draw the line elsewhere, no big, do your thing, there’s no one True answer to OP’s question… but your comment feels like whataboutism to me and adds nothing of value.
Adding factual information about (potential) retro consoles in a retro gaming community adds nothing of value? Okay then.
Fun to think that someday if USB C finishes to eradicate HDMI/DP they might become the sign that it is retro… Look at that! They had a dedicated plug for the video signal back then :)
Thats basically my demarcation point too.
If something can output a format a modern tv can upscale with no issues using a connection type it has then it’s not retro.
Anything that has component or hdmi output and can do 480p/i or better is just old, not retro.
Even simpler, if it was designed to work with a CRT television because that is what the vast majority of people had at the time.
That is a very interesting take. 4:3 games do have a certain retro feeling to them!
Agreed cause this before ps3 and 360 which is how I see it also
I would consider anything pre-PS3/Xbox360 as retro. Anything after is old but I’d still consider them modern games. Aside from graphics and scale not much has changed since the PS3 era.
I’m relatively with you there. PS5, Xbox Series, and Switch are the current modern consoles. When I was 12, we got a gamecube while it was current gen, and considered N64 to be somewhat retro already, but SNES was firmly retro- or 2 Gens back. I think it’s reasonable to not think PS3 and 360 are retro, but older than that surely is. PS3 and 360 games don’t lag behind modern games by the same leaps and bounds SNES to GameCube did. But PS2, Xbox, and GameCube are all still in the pre-HD Era. For that reason I’d make the rather radical suggestion that Wii might be considered retro already, since it remained an SD console while it’s contemporaries were HD.
It’s a moving target. For me, I would say anything older than about 15-20 years is “retro” and anything older than 30 years is “vintage.”
Two generations, so the 360, Wii, and PS3 are currently the cutting edge of retro.
I am reminded of the huge arguments on RGVC on Usenet when people started discussing NES games in the mid-90s. Since they were two generations old at that point (PS1 and Saturn having just launched), they were grudgingly allowed. I think that remains a good barometer.
I’m at the age now where I know deep down the Wii is retro, but I don’t want to accept it.
I would almost say anything that doesn’t require an internet connection to work with 100% content could be considered retro at this point.
Anything that does not get made anymore is classed as retro is it not?
That’s where I currently draw the line. Unfortunately, there’s a perception that obsolete is not necessarily retro. Typically, a machine that was just abandoned (ie the Xbox One) is not considered fashionably retro… just old.
Things were a lot easier back in the 1990s where the line was more easily drawn. Everything before the video game crash was retro; everything after was modern. But time marched on and the 21st century arrived, and the rules changed. Now even game systems with polygons are retro! Now even game systems with hyper-realistic graphics, like the Xbox 360, are retro! I feel like Danny Glover. I’m getting too old to keep track of this shit.
like the Xbox 360, are retro
That’s just one generation ag… oh
It still doesn’t feel like anything on the XBox 360 and maybe even the PS2 is retro in the same way that older games are retro. In the Xbox 360 era games had already settled into conventions we are using to this day.
Hell, GTA 5 and Skyrim have been released for the XBox 360 and they keep being rereleased remastered with no significant gameplay changes to this day.
But SNES? PS1? That’s a whole different world.
Retro is everything you were in to when you were 12.
My line is at the transition from 2d to 3d mostly.
2d is retro. Early 3d is like the awkward teenage years. Everything since Xbox 360/PS3 is modern to me.
Yup. Initial 3D games were, let’s just say awkward.
My line is at the transition from 2d to 3d mostly.
Strictly speaking, the two co-existed long before 3D became the vogue on consoles; Revs is a proper racing simulator in 1984.
What classifies as Retro… Hmm… The last retro consoles would have to be the original Xbox, PS2, GameCube and Dreamcast.
Xbox360, PS3, Wii would still be in that middle ground of not quite retro but not quite modern either. They won’t exactly be retro, atleast for me, till 2035-36 at the latest.
I don’t know about the 2035 part, but I completely agree that that’s the last retro generation
I guess it really just depends on you and what you experienced, or were too young to experience.
Im sure younger zoomers see those systems as retro, much in the same way we saw NES as retro in the early 00s.
For me its hard to consider PS2 or Xbox as retro. That era was the first time I had disposable income as a young adult, living at home. And I think experiencing them as an adult, to me, makes it feel like these systems are still very new and cutting edge… even though theyre very much not anymore.
For me I’d say retro is Gen 6 and below, but specifically including the Dreamcast and PS2, but probably excluding the Xbox, and maybe GameCube.
The Xbox was the first console with internal storage built in and both the Xbox and GameCube used shader pipelining aka modern GPU architecture. Basically, I feel if shader compilation is a requirement for emulating it, I don’t consider it retro.
I feel like gc is retro because it had weird conventions. Weird ass controller. Weird controls. Xbox had started to settle in with modern standard schemes. Especially for things like fps and tps.
True, and it’s why I’m on the fence about GameCube. It’s kinda retro but kinda not. The weird controller and small disc sizes make it feel retro, but it has modern-ish dual stage triggers, and a PowerPC architecture with a modern GPU design, double precision floats, OOE compute.
Meanwhile the PS2 was still weird, included the PS1 chip, and mostly just had a massive fill rate to make up for its shortcomings.
In my POV, anything past the current generation - 1(so current gen + previous gen), it is considered retro Xbox One X? Not retro. Xbox One? Not retro. Xbox 360? Retro.
Agreed. As much as it pains me to say my primary console from college is retro, it’s been almost two decades since then (:
That’s when you look at yourself and say “damn im getting old…”
My own personal line in the sand is what Wikipedia calls “the sixth generation”: Sega Dreamcast, Nintendo Gamecube, Sony PS2, Microsoft Xbox. They’re “retro” to me. Starting from the seventh generation, there was a noticeable bump in the ability for systems to churn out relatively-realistic graphics, with the PS3 and Xbox 360 leading the way, and the Wii embracing its delightfully-modern cartoony style.
To me, GameCube and PS2 are retro. Wii is getting there, and god, I feel old. Had to convince myself to put down “GameCube” instead of “N64”.
