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. 🙂
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.
That’s actually a great distinction.
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.
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 :)
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!
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.
I’m at the age now where I know deep down the Wii is retro, but I don’t want to accept it.
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.
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.”
I would almost say anything that doesn’t require an internet connection to work with 100% content could be considered retro at this point.
20 years is considered vintage if that helps.
Wait… So ssbm is vintage? Oh gosh, time sure is fast
20 years is vintage, yes.
I’ve been playing a vintage game for 2 years and i didn’t even know? gosh
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
Retro is everything you were in to when you were 12.
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.
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”.
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.
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.
I would argue that retro is individual. Depending on when you grew up and which games you played back then.
