RetroGaming

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. 🙂

I would almost say anything that doesn’t require an internet connection to work with 100% content could be considered retro at this point.

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.

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.

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".

How I like to see it, going backwards on the timeline (you can tell mine was a PlayStation household lol);

• PS5 Era = Modern
• PS4 Era = Last Gen
• PS3 Era = Transitional
• PS2 Era = Classic
• PSX to NES Era = Retro

Anything before that is Prehistoric.

Anything that does not get made anymore is classed as retro is it not?

Personally I classify everything older than 30 years (in video gaming) to be retro-gaming i my mind! So even the first Pokémon games are retro to me :)

~15 years is the arbitrary cutoff that feels right to me, despite how old it is continuing to make me feel

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 would argue that retro is individual. Depending on when you grew up and which games you played back then.

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.

Personally, for me PS2 era and older is retro for sure. There is a clear distinction where many PS3 games share similar feeling with modern games, while my PS2 ones feel from a past time. We also still had things like memory cards, altrough obviously not all consoles in that generation do. Still, I would put generations on one line, as most console games where ports of the same game across consoles of the same generation, so then that's the last generation with these kinda old ways of storing. PS2's gen is also the last generation console games where completely different from PC, and in my childhood gaming up to then wasn't mainstream but a nerd hobby, causing it to have a very different community. With the generation of the PS3, all of that changed to modern standards.

PS3 and DS I'm a bit in dubio about. Whenever I feel bored with modern games, PS3 and my (3)DS are on the list of "old" consoles I grab back to (together with PS2, PS1, and recently GBC/GBA which I'd consider retro for sure). On the other hand, at least half the games released on it are games I still play on my PC as "modern games". DS is extra hard, as I barely distinct between 3DS as DS in my mind, unless it's using the GBA port for stuff. After all, I play them on the same console and the transition was quite smooth between the DS models making it not feel like a huge gab, unlike the PS2 to PS3. But at the same time, early DS is much older than late 3DS, which I would consider too new for sure.

Anything after that, modern for sure.

(One of) the biggest tech sites in my country uses "at least two generations old" as definition, making PS3 the last retro generation currently. I like it because it fits my usage, but as said I'm a bit in dubio about actually calling the PS3 retro. It doesn't feel old fashioned enough. I mean, that would technically make Skyrim retro. But that's definitly one of those games that are in my "modern gaming" list on PC and Switch...

I can at least personally attest that PS3 is currently the newest gen where people either think you're awesome for buying it now because they get the fun of old stuff, or stupid because they think the old stuff is crap and only the new is cool. For that reason I would agree to allow it on retro places, as modern gaming places just wouldn't appriciate it at all while people who are already into older stuff do on a somewhat regular basis. But that doesn't make it truly retro per se, and it really should take over or be all you use.

20 years is considered vintage if that helps.

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.

I'm at the age now where I know deep down the Wii is retro, but I don't want to accept it.

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.

Retro is everything you were in to when you were 12.

I'm not interested drawing a hard line at a year or system. Something is retro if it feels old.

Once upon a time PS2 was new but now it feels old (and looks garbage compared to new games) so it's retro.

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.

I'm not really sure I consider anything retro? Old tech ends up still getting supported, just by indie hobbyists. But outside of that I guess XB360 and below since it's not being produced anymore.

I have a simple definition, hardware is retro if it's no longer being produced, software is retro if it's no longer beind sold

EDIT: posting this here because I can't seem to respond to a kbin user below, the message never goes through:

A digital re-release is different from the original release, in my opinion. For example, Full Throttle is on steam but I had the original one, which came in a box. You can even download the CD-ROM ISO somewhere, but you can't find that box with the CD-ROM anymore (unless you buy it secondhand from someone).

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 think of "retro" as pixel-based and early 3D games that were sorta killed during the PS1/Saturn/N64 era.

Once we get into more advanced 3D / Polygonal games (PS2/GameCube/Xbox), it's a different era; but it's not due to the visual shift alone, but the design philosophy and craft/code itself. I would consider them "modern" and point to series like Zelda as an example.

Games like WindWaker feel more connected to Breath of the Wild than it does to Link to the Past or even Ocarina of Time. And I think the same goes for series like Mario, Metal Gear, and so on.