r/RetroGaming is very strict about retro. They say the Nintendo 64 is retro while the PlayStation 2 is modern. This despite the fact the PlayStation 2 is now 25 years old.
So I got to wonder about this community deems as “retro”.
Or a better question: what’s considered retro and not retro? What’s the fine line between retro and modern?
If it can be emulated on a potato it’s retro. If it’s it’s old but not trivial to emulate then it’s classic.
20 years is a good cutoff, in my opinion. That puts the original God of War in retro territory, and I’m ok with that. I’m also ok with vanilla WoW (up to patch 1.8 or so) being retro. These things are old, we’re getting old and pretending games from 2005 and before aren’t retro is just wishful thinking.
If it can purchase alcohol it’s retro
/r/retrogaming’s definition doesn’t work anymore now that there are multiple generations that grew up with video games. Just because it doesn’t feel retro to the 40 year old who remembers playing the PS2 as a teenager doesn’t mean it’s not retro. The PS2 is absolutely a retro console, and the PS3 is very much getting there.
anything that came out before 2011
Anything pre ~2000, graphics came on incredibly in the years at the end of the 90s start of the 21 century. The difference between FF7 (1997)
and FF10(2001)
is vast
Around 2 generations of consoles ago, or around 10 years, whatever comes “first”.
the ps3 is retro then?
10 years seems a bit short, that would mean Hearthstone, GTA5 and Sims 4 qualify.
Yes that’s what I said. PS3 era games and at this point, early PS4 start yo qualify for me. Although still actively developed games aren’t “fully” retro, clearly. I’m still on the fence about calling Bloodbkrne retro, for instance.
Anything that needs to be played on a CRT.
I’d say, at 50, imo anything 32 bit and below is retro but there needs to be a new name for the “old” stuff that is 64bit
Old games don’t need to be played on a CRT any more than modern games need to be played on an OLED/LCD flat panel.
So Gameboy isn’t retro?
It goes on vibes. Historically I’d have said anything with an 8- or 16-bit CPU (NES/SNES, Megadrive, the surfeit of home computers before everyone standardised on beige-box Windows PCs). Nowadays I’d say anything slow enough to be emulated reasonably using present-day technology could be said to be retro, so PS2 would count. If video output is analogue PAL/NTSC, that probably also counts.
Anything that came out when I was a kid or earlier is retro so anything pre 2000 is retro. Post is modern.
Anything that came out when I was a kid or earlier is retro so anything pre 1990 is retro. Post is modern.
Anything that came out when I was a kid is retro, so anything pre 1970s is retro. 80s or later is modern.
Back in the PS2/Xbox/Gamecube era the SNES and Megadrive seemed to be retro while the PS1 and N64 were just “old”. So maybe 2 generations ago is the start of retro.
I think it’s definitely a lot blurrier now though. The differences between consoles and the leaps between generations are less pronounced, and there are so many y rereleases and remasters now keeping older games fresh.
Anything before the GameCube, PS2, and Original Xbox.
So PS1, Sega Saturn, and Nintendo64 and older are “retro.”
The Atari 2600 and Colecovision are “vintage.”
Pong and the Magnavox Odyssey are “antique.”
What about Dreamcast? 🤔
Just “old”
Original Xbox, GameCube, PS2, Dreamcast - “old.”
PS3, Xbox 360, Wii - “modern.”
PS4, Xbox One - “previous gen”
PS5, Xbox Series - “current gen”
Nintendo Switch - “2015 smartphone”
But the PS3 / 360 are coming up to 20 years old. Hell, one of my adult colleagues was born after the 360 was released. Can they really be considered modern anymore?
Anything running 480i/p is retro. If it’s higher than that, it’s modern.
The fine line to me is when we started to shift from cartridges to optical media: Dreamcast/PS1/GameCube.
Anything that would make a kid today instantly say “ew, that old thing?” is retro to me. That includes everything up through PS2/Gamecube/Xbox to me.
