What is the definition of 'retro' to you?

[Sumea]

About time ... Wait Wii u? Does that mean that the Wii never existed?

I assume it is more that Wii already was universally considered retro. This being more of technological argument for retro than age which I made a small novel about on last page.
I actually only just now read what the "GameStop announcement" in first post and it is almost definitively a parody meme/troll since GameStop in no way is a company cool enough to make any official paperwork worded like the one here. Still a valid thread for the third or fourth time we might even unlock the metaphysics of philosophy if we have this debate in an infinite time loop enough times.

EDIT: Oh wait it is actually real I forgot companies be cringe online these days.

 

[Sorion]

To consider a console "retro" has little to do with their age and more to do with the way their games feel, ps3 and xbox 360 have a lot of games that still feel quite similar to newer games in therms of gameplay and game mechanics, the graphics are worse but the difference isn't that dramatic, you can still go back and play a cod or GTA from that console generation and the control schemes and game feel are still fairly similar. The only thing they're lacking is the agressive monetization of newer multiplayer games.

 

[Amag0k1]

So Ps3 and Xbox 360 are retro but not wii I guess the wii still innovative console to rhis day huh?

Captin N and their lawyers will not allow it to be "Retro"! :

 

[Sumea]

To consider a console "retro" has little to do with their age and more to do with the way their games feel, ps3 and xbox 360 have a lot of games that still feel quite similar to newer games in therms of gameplay and game mechanics, the graphics are worse but the difference isn't that dramatic, you can still go back and play a cod or GTA from that console generation and the control schemes and game feel are still fairly similar. The only thing they're lacking is the agressive monetization of newer multiplayer games.

Well... This is a bit weird way to put it, I gave out a technological standpoint for the retro feel but game feel is also off in my books. Like what feels modern? FPS games already played like they did on PS3 and PS4 back in PS2 so is PS2 not retro because FPS games played like they play today? Are Quake, 2 and 3 modern games because they play so similarly to modern FPS games, they just look a bit worse, or is OverWatch a retro game?
GTA 3 and VC and SA played mostly like 4 and 5 so is PS2 not retro as well? Or is GTA 5 a retro game?
Is 2D sidescrolling platforming something that would be looked at from this lens? Is Hollow Knight a retro game or is Super Mario Brothers not retro because it feels very similar to side scrolling 2D games today? Is expedition 33 a retro game because it plays very similarly to turn based RPG's or is FF6 considered a modern game because it plays similarly to other turn based games?

I could go on with few more but generally there are universals in gaming that makes this a silly point. People just have vibes and put a first wording to their vibes even though the wording makes it sound silly. Because it is not a concrete thing for most people it is not exactly time it is not entirely technology either is is not entirely advancement or lack thereof in design or so on.

Someone would say modern gaming is defined when they started using orchestras in games and now Panzer Dragoon and Shadow of the Colossus are modern games.

I am also not trying to be mean to everyone I poke holes into here but more like, making you think more what you think. Dig a little deeper and that might help you with other stuff.

 

[Amag0k1]

I'm sorry but that just means the word means nothing and you could just call it all fairy dust.

Post automatically merged: Mar 17, 2026

This is right but how the word is used also decides what the word is. That is language and meaning of words is more important than definitions. While I also argue that the meaning has become now so blurry it might not even be there if it be like this.

I think they are using "Retro" as a classification to raise prices, as the "Retro" market will keep getting more expensive as a result of chip shortages pushing people to subscription services, or so the elites hope will be the case..Basicly you will own nothing, and that means the physical going up in price.

 

[Sumea]

I think they are using "Retro" as a classification to raise prices, as the "Retro" market will keep getting more expensive as a result of chip shortages pushing people to subscription services, or so the elites hope will be the case..

Well, it used to be Retro games are the cheap ones you get for pennies. Yes, there is a retro and collector and all such right now and that makes bucks and it is rather meaningless in the end but like Black Lotus and a Charizard it matters to some who are willing to exchange a lot of fairy dust between them for such items.

I will add, at one time I would say something is retro when it has an emulator that plays most of the library of the system without major problems (so, emulation accuracy is not as crucial as emulation playability). But this wouldn't make sense because I was just ignorant to Bleem's existence, Switch emulation is a thing during Switch's time, and Xbox OG is still struggling in that mostly working emulator front even though it is absolutely retro hardware.

 

[gwardojones]

Maybe not a popular opinion, but I've held firm on a "if it's 20 years old or older, it's retro" rule for games, regardless of how they feel to play.

 

[Sorion]

Well... This is a bit weird way to put it, I gave out a technological standpoint for the retro feel but game feel is also off in my books. Like what feels modern? FPS games already played like they did on PS3 and PS4 back in PS2 so is PS2 not retro because FPS games played like they play today? Are Quake, 2 and 3 modern games because they play so similarly to modern FPS games, they just look a bit worse, or is OverWatch a retro game?
GTA 3 and VC and SA played mostly like 4 and 5 so is PS2 not retro as well? Or is GTA 5 a retro game?
Is 2D sidescrolling platforming something that would be looked at from this lens? Is Hollow Knight a retro game or is Super Mario Brothers not retro because it feels very similar to side scrolling 2D games today? Is expedition 33 a retro game because it plays very similarly to turn based RPG's or is FF6 considered a modern game because it plays similarly to other turn based games?

I could go on with few more but generally there are universals in gaming that makes this a silly point. People just have vibes and put a first wording to their vibes even though the wording makes it sound silly. Because it is not a concrete thing for most people it is not exactly time it is not entirely technology either is is not entirely advancement or lack thereof in design or so on.

Someone would say modern gaming is defined when they started using orchestras in games and now Panzer Dragoon and Shadow of the Colossus are modern games.

I am also not trying to be mean to everyone I poke holes into here but more like, making you think more what you think. Dig a little deeper and that might help you with other stuff.

heh, you've made yourself a good point, I guess the line between retro and modern can't be deffined by just a console generation, in fact, many ps2 games are refined enough to the point I can't quite consider them retro. It's a simplified point of view, and simplified points of view tend to have gaps and quirks that make them vague in some extreme cases, but my point still remains, to call the ps3/xbox 360 generation retro, is just dosen't feel right to me. Retro to me is something that has become totally obsolete in a technical perspective but is still loved despite it's limitations, and even tough that generation runs on 20 year old processors and 512MB of ram, those hardware specs are just enough for modernish graphics and gameplay. If you compare games from 2026 with games from 2006, 2026 games look much better and are larger but the core gameplay mechanics are still pretty much the same. By contrast, if you compare games from 1986 with games from 2006, they are fundamentally different, the tech of 1986 can't handle the game mechanics and advanced 3D engines of the 2000's.

 

[Amag0k1]

I will add, at one time I would say something is retro when it has an emulator that plays most of the library of the system without major problems (so, emulation accuracy is not as crucial as emulation playability). But this wouldn't make sense because I was just ignorant to Bleem's existence, Switch emulation is a thing during Switch's time, and Xbox OG is still struggling in that mostly working emulator front even though it is absolutely retro hardware.

What you have described there, is game preservation. And this is one of the most important things right now, since they are pushing for a subscription service and AI slop, pushing talents out.

For me, these talents should do like Capcom and RE9, and make games that sell to show the "tripple A" studios how it is done. As there is a market there, no mater how much they want to change it to a "Enron" system like accounting push they are aiming for right now....

 

[Sumea]

What you have described there, is game preservation.

No, what i described there is how I would guide my vibes about something gaming being retro when I was 15. If N64 had an emulator even though it was less than 10 years old it was now retro. Emulation game preservation etc are good stuff but not related to using them as another imperfect benchmark of retroness.

 

[gastd]

It's still too early to call these gaming consoles retro. Let's let another 20 years pass then you can say they are retro.

 

[Sumea]

It's still too early to call these gaming consoles retro. Let's let another 20 years pass then you can say they are retro.

So currently only retro consoles Are Atari 2600 and 5200 and NES, Master system, mark II and SG1000. and intellivision maybe whatever was out by '86. Even GameBoy is still modern.

 

[gastd]

N64 is not yet retro it will be retro this summer.

I thought this console is also retro but OK, that's good to know.

 

[Sumea]

I thought this console is also retro but OK, that's good to know.

Sorry I had to edit the post if your benchmark is 40 years old only NES, Master System and Atari 2600 are retro right now. Game boy is not.. Street Fighter 2 is a modern arcade game still. Everything else released after '86 is still too early to call retro.
Atari 7800 is not yet retro it will be in two months.

 

[Jeff]

Nirvana is considered classic rock by radio stations. It's a passage of time thing. You're not going to walk into a store and see new 360, PS3, or Wii U games at a Target or something outside of weird fluke cases. So they might as well be retro. Sorry, we're all getting up there, gramps. It isn't just you, at least.

 

[Ikagura]

The Wii U? I mean it wasn't the strongest of its generation but still...

 

[χKai]

Everybody just
Watch this

 

[BrawlMan]

Everybody just
Watch this

Interesting he mentions how certain younger gamers won't play SMB3 because it's "too old". Yet Minecraft is over a decade old at this point, and Fortnite is about to be 10 years old. Roblox has been around since 2009.

It's not all doom and gloom as there plenty of young kids I've heard that never played Streets of Rage, or only knew of the franchise via mitosis. But after playing Streets of Rage 4, and seeing how it amazing the game is, a lot of those kids became much more interested or wanted to experience the older titles. Some already did, but I am happy with the results either way.

 

[Sumea]

Interesting he mentions how certain younger gamers won't play SMB3 because it's "too old". Yet Minecraft is over a decade old at this point, and Fortnite is about to be 10 years old. Roblox has been around since 2009.

It's not all doom and gloom as there plenty of young kids I've heard that never played Streets of Rage, or only knew of the franchise via mitosis. But after playing Streets of Rage 4, and seeing how it amazing the game is, a lot of those kids became much more interested or wanted to experience the older titles. Some already did, but I am happy with the results either way.

There is also a lot of 15-22 year olds who are into retro games, games that are literally older than they themselves are. Heck I am into some NES games and most of those are older than I am. There are just genuinely always good experiences on most "retro" systems. I would myself say, in my opinion that Atari 2600 is generally bit too old for it's own good and there are reasons why most arcade games of the "first era" are forgotten minus a handful. Most of those are not that much of fun games. And the ones that still are, get recognition for that reason, like Space Invaders, Pac-Man, Donkey Kong, and few others too but most, forgotten. Not just that fun to play given what gaming is today. Earliest famicom is bit same but there is from thereon genuinely fun games throughout the lifespan of FamiNES. A lot of old games, even "Bad ones" are still fun to play, even today. There is real novelty in a OK game, not even a great game, that is truly of "they do not make them like these anymore" creed. Like I never heard of Baroque for Sega Saturn before year or two ago, and I never been a particular fan of "Roguelikes" but I been having an experience with Baroque because it is genuinely good and unique experience using not only loop of mechanically simple gameplay with graphical and sound design meant to convey something. It is bit "Mightier than thou" type of thing to look at younger people who are still young adults with assumptions based on their age. Yeah a good chunk of em are idiots and do not know shit and have shit opinions but there are some who grew up with a gamer dad that made them Castlevania sidescroller fans, fans of Original mega man series and go on playing an old classic that is older than them for fist time and saying shit to their dad that will make him feel numerous things from the insight of this young thing.

 

[gastd]

Souvenirs could also go well with retro, perhaps.

 

[Ikagura]

Everybody just
Watch this

If this is another "kids today..." rambling I'm not interested.

 

[shaggi]

To me, it's everything made when games still evolving. Especially to PS2 era. After that, games got better looks and need more hard disc space, but not changing as much as before.

 

[χKai]

If this is another "kids today..." rambling I'm not interested.

I specifically wanted people to see the part where he talks about the stupid stunt Gamestops trying to pull acting like they have any authority over the public to declare some shit like that, because what he said was spot-on.

We need more open-minded people on the forum, it's tiring having to explain simple things all the time to people who just want to cover their ears and go "I'm not listening".

 

[Eughlius]

To me retro is anything prior to the PS2 era. To me that represents the last paradigm jump in graphics capabilities gaming, as we know it, had.

I think as time goes on the term will continue to lose meaning, as its largely (to me) based on graphics. Earlier console generations used to have such large differences in performance between them that it was convenient and easily recognisable what you meant when you called the PS1 retro whilst playing on your PS2. However you find it a bit more difficult to call the PS2 retro when playing your PS4. Yes, the changes are very evident, but they're not as evident as they used to be.

That trend will continue, graphical improvements lie on a bell curve with a very perceivable ceiling, we already have strong enough hardware to have hyper realistic graphics almost indistinguishable to life, how much further is there to go? Will someone playing on their PS8 be able to call the PS5 'retro' in the same earnest as prior generations? I don't think so.

Game design philosophy or 'feel' like some have suggested also plays a big role in what is defined as 'retro,' too. But ultimately this runs into the same problem as using retro to define graphical generations. At some point innovational leaps turn into indistinguishable increments of improvement, and you hit the ceiling.

Perhaps the future of the term will lie in how we interact with games. Perhaps our way of interfacing will shift from controllers to VR/AR. Perhaps AI will completely change how we interact with story telling aspects of gaming. Perhaps even the hardware we'll use to play our games will shift more to services like Google Stadia. (God, I hope not.) All of these would redefine what it means to be 'retro.'

For example, we already see a very big shift in how games are structured and designed due to the absolute dominance of micro-transactions or Games-As-A-Service models. Battle passes, seasons, freemium games, the whole gacha industry explosion. To me this has a way more observable 'before and after' feel between generations than anything else within the past 15 years.

TL;DR : Most people use the term 'retro' to refer to graphical jumps between generations, but current gen gaming has started to hit the ceiling in terms of what more to improve, as such the improvements are more incremental and less noticeable. I believe the term retro will be rendered meaningless in the modern application or potentially recycled to refer to other aspects of gaming, such as ways of interacting with the game in a controller, story telling or even how we interact monetarily.

 

[χKai]

Let's take a look:
According to Google, "Retro" refers to styles, fashions, or trends from the recent past (often 15–30+ years old) that are revived or become fashionable again.

So Pong and all the pioneers of gaming technically  cannot be 'retro', they're the original video games; they're not a revived trend, but a beginning one. This also by definition means Atari can't really be considered 'retro', because it not only is an ongoing part of the original video game 'trend'; it led to the great video game crash of 1983. Sorry 'tari.

The Nintendo Entertainment System is arguably retro, because it revived video games as a growing modern medium. It didn't invent gaming; they reinvented gaming and revived the entire medium itself from the brink of extinction after what Atari and other companies did to drive off the potential growing fanbase. Nintendo made video games synonymous with Fun.

These also seem to indicate that retro is a style, fashion, or trend from the past; in this case, the 70s being Pong and other arcade style video games soon to come. The Nintendo Famicom revived this art, changing the way games were made from that point forth, gaining a massive public interest at the time as the art form grew and games continued to get better and better.

That said, it does not say anything about an age cutoff limit being capped at 30 years old, but can be even older; I would argue that the early, Black Box titles and other games might have started the life of the NES, but it was in the years to follow when the console gained it's massive popularity and became widely-known, by peoples from all walks of life.
It could then be argued that while the start of the revivification of Video Gaming did get it's start on the early NES, the improvement in game's quality was what truly boosted the medium; pushing ahead leaps and bounds beyond what anyone would have anticipated at the time.

The Nintendo Entertainment System is old; it will never be "too old" to be 'retro', for what it did for the gaming medium as a whole; but can any other console say that it truly revived a dying art form such as Video Gaming In General? I don't think so; it has been a mainstay and been around to stay, and never left. No other console can boast that.