The Age Old Question.

[Souppp]

What console generation would you all consider to be the cut-off to be considered retro?

For me, I would consider it to be GEN 4.

It's right before we started to get actual 3D games, which to me feels like the start of a new era. That's not to say that Gen 5 and onward should be considered new, however, I just think there should be a different classification other than retro... maybe modern (?).

 

[Rez09]

For me, I consider the cutoff the SNES era and back, but I fully understand people arguing for the PS1 and 2 eras — time has an odd way of stopping in my head and I often forget just how old that stuff is now. I mean, the PS3 is older than my oldest daughter who just graduated high school.

 

[thetwaz]

I have heard it said that there is a kind of view that when people say 'retro' they kind of mean 80s vaporwave type aesthetics like Atari and NES type games. I'm not sure that's wholly true though. So much changed in 10 years, and even in 5 years after that.

I've also heard the pre-3D thing, but then so many people now consider PSX games as retro. Also it gets really complicated when you bring PC games into it, as they were doing 3D a lot more commonly. Even the SNES had Star Fox/Star Wing and some other games that did pseudo 3D like Mario Kart.

Personally - I think the term retro is really unhelpful as by its nature, it changes. I think it's more helpful for discussions to talk about 'pre-Gen (x) gaming' or 'pre-3D acceleration, pre-Windows, Pre-XP gaming' or whatever specific subset you mean. People tie themselves into knots over these definitions otherwise, and I've seen a lot of discussions degenerate into whether something is or isn't retro when clearly the poster just has different terms of engagement to the OP.

 

[Souppp]

I have heard it said that there is a kind of view that when people say 'retro' they kind of mean 80s vaporwave type aesthetics like Atari and NES type games. I'm not sure that's wholly true though. So much changed in 10 years, and even in 5 years after that.

I've also heard the pre-3D thing, but then so many people now consider PSX games as retro. Also it gets really complicated when you bring PC games into it, as they were doing 3D a lot more commonly. Even the SNES had Star Fox/Star Wing and some other games that did pseudo 3D like Mario Kart.

Personally - I think the term retro is really unhelpful as by its nature, it changes. I think it's more helpful for discussions to talk about 'pre-Gen (x) gaming' or 'pre-3D acceleration, pre-Windows, Pre-XP gaming' or whatever specific subset you mean. People tie themselves into knots over these definitions otherwise, and I've seen a lot of discussions degenerate into whether something is or isn't retro when clearly the poster just has different terms of engagement to the OP.

I totally get how you feel and I feel the same way. The term is very subjective and equally as broad, but that's why I asked the question. It's a very widely used term, and everyone has an opinion on it, so it's a fun way to find unique opinions of the general public (Including some who might not be as well-versed in more specific, and more technical terms) and possibly gain a new perspective.

 

[Retro Doomer]

The Ps2 would be for me with I guess the Original Xbox be the last console generation I would consider Retro.
So while the Ps3 is old by now and a Classic Console I would not call it Retro at least not to the same extend I would call the Mega Drive or Ps2.
at least that is what I think.

 

[zerodayhx]

the unfortunate truth that alot of people dont like is that there is no concrete cutoff for retro, it is always changing because the games we grew up playing are now considered retro, just like the generations before us.

I usually do about 2 console generations as the buffer which is usually between 15-18 years which i think is a fair gap.

 

[Retro Doomer]

the unfortunate truth that alot of people dont like is that there is no concrete cutoff for retro, it is always changing because the games we grew up playing are now considered retro, just like the generations before us.

I usually do about 2 console generations as the buffer which is usually between 15-18 years which i think is a fair gap.

Technically speaking probably but its the same with the term Vintage like a Classic Car or Vintage Car where people have a clear understanding on what is one abd which one are not,
you would for example not call a Car produced in 2010 a Vintage/Classic Car or would you no matter how much time passed.

I think the term Retro in itself as most people see it focuses on a technological shift from what we consider old classic gaming to what can be seen as more advanced modern gaming in terms of graphic and hardware like the huge jump from Ps2 to Ps3.

 

[zombie100379]

i would class anything from 16bit/8bit (side scrolling , scaler era) and before as retro and to me anythng from the 32bit era to now is quite modern because the only difference is graphical improvements and better engines

 

[Retro Doomer]

i would class anything from 16bit/8bit and before as retro and to me anythng from the 32bit era to now is quite modern because the only difference is graphical improvements and better engines

With zhat Logic I could also apply 16 to 8 bit honestly better hardware and actual graphic chips making them able to play games with 16 bit instead of 8.

Like I previously states for me the largest jump was from Ps2 to P3 so Retro would cut off for me at the Ps2 with the Og Xbox
Ps3 and Xbox 360 are Classic Consoles for me but not really retro in a sense like a Mega Drive would be.
But I also would not consider them modern consoles either they are the quirky middle child between Retro and Modern games.

 

[Sorion]

To me is the 6th gen, specifically the PS2, Gamecube and Xbox are to me the first modern consoles, the Dreamcast however is the only exception since it was the last console with a huge library of arcade games , I think that's one of the most defining characteristics of the retro game, the arcade experience, something you sit and enjoy a couple of minutes just for the sake of it, pretty much the game itself is the whole experience, and the Dreamcast delivers a lot of games just like that.

Starting with the Playstation 1 and Sega Saturn, consumers began to demand longer games, with more intricate plots, that's when the gaming market shifted from arcade experiences to the modern game design and the sixth gen was overall the biggest jump in graphics fidelity and game design in gaming history, many of the most popular game genres from today had their most important refinements back in the 6th gen, Halo popularized the console FPS, GTA 3 popularized 3D open world games, Bioware popularized the 3D story heavy RPG, World of warcraft came out in 2004, etc.

 

[Retro Doomer]

To me is the 6th gen, specifically the PS2, Gamecube and Xbox are to me the first modern consoles, the Dreamcast however is the only exception since it was the last console with a huge library of arcade games , I think that's one of the most defining characteristics of the retro game, the arcade experience, something you sit and enjoy a couple of minutes just for the sake of it, pretty much the game itself is the whole experience, and the Dreamcast delivers a lot of games just like that.

Starting with the Playstation 1 and Sega Saturn, consumers began to demand longer games, with more intricate plots, that's when the gaming market shifted from arcade experiences to the modern game design and the sixth gen was overall the biggest jump in graphics fidelity and game design in gaming history, many of the most popular game genres from today had their most important refinements back in the 6th gen, Halo popularized the console FPS, GTA 3 popularized 3D open world games, Bioware popularized the 3D story heavy RPG, World of warcraft came out in 2004, etc.

You dropped your meme good sir

 

[SamanthaSamantha's icon]

N64 /PS1 — the last of the cartridge-based ones and the first CD-based juggernaut coexisting there for a while sounds like a very natural stop point.

 

[cups]

It's complicated. PS2 still has a retro feel to me, because it has this distinct PS2-ness vibe, graphics wise, which is not replicated anywhere else. (I never had PS2 before, I emulate to explore it). GBA and DS are retro enough for me too, they also have distinct feel. Funnily enough, 3DS also has this distinct retro feel for me, but, for example PS3 absolutely not.

 

[beefbowl]

My cutting line is Crysis. Every game after Crysis looks same to me, so I consider them all new and modern. Realistic graphics have all been the same since.
Before Crysis, there's a period of Ps2-3 games that are in the limbo for me. I don't consider Ps2-3 retro, They are just old for me.
Anything PS1 and before is retro I consider. Timeline-wise this I apply it to PC games as well.

 

[Heidegger of Shinra]

"Retro" is a category of convenience, not one that could belong to a real taxonomy. Gaming historians taking a scientific approach will probably avoid the word.
Which basically means you can use the word liberally.

Retailers will inevitably choose to interpret this in the broadest possible way. If they can capitalise on a retro craze, they will, and it will be the widest net they can conceivably cast.
In a market driven economy, this will largely define the colloquialism. Retro will come to mean "whatever can be sold under that designation".

I have seen PS3 and 360 games in the retro section of EB Games.

 

[lestagio]

PS1 is about the cutoff for me. The issue is that there's different definitions of what retro is. The dictionary definition is "relating to, reviving, or being the styles and especially the fashions of the past : fashionably nostalgic or old-fashioned". By that definition, anything that feels like a game of the past could be retro. Shovel Knight, for example, could be called a "retro game" by this definition.

So a more accurate term is probably "vintage" more than "retro", but now I'm being incredibly pedantic. Some people do consider retro as just... "old". I know people who will consider games 20 years old or older as "retro".

Personally, I consider it as a certain time period. Games have sort of plateaued and don't advance like they used to. A PS1 game looks way worse than a PS3 game, but a PS3 game doesn't look all too much worse than a PS5 game.

I feel like the time period in question stops at PS1. Once you get into the PS2/Xbox/Gamecube generation, companies were getting their footing and games were becoming more consistent. Before that, people were just throwing shit at the wall and hoping it stuck.