What year does retro gaming end and modern gaming start?

[cwpab]

While reading the fun CPCnext topic I created, one of you suggested that machines more powerful than 8 bits were "too much" because you lose the magic of "one man projects".

Not sure if I agree or disagree, but combined with my general instinctive disdain for the 16 bit consoles  (I think I perceive those games as 8 bits gameplay with more flashy graphics, too predictable and lacking originality), and the fact that after 1990 many games started having development teams of 10-20 people (a far cry from the 1000 people working on the worst-rated PS5 games, but still), I started to wonder... Where does modern gaming (and all its problems) start? Let's analyze all the options:

2013) If you were born in 2005, you probably think the PS3 is retro. Well sorry, little boy, but this poll is not for you. Oh and stop drinking Monster, you're gonna have a heart attack.

2005) Now this is a more realistic option. 2005 marks the start of the HD era, the motion controls, the wireless controllers, the digital media, the online play by default on all platforms... But let's be honest, games play exactly the same as in the PS2 era. So maybe we need to dig deeper.

2000) Apart from being full of people giving 200 upvotes to posts where one person shows a picture of some game or their collection, the retrogaming subreddit is known for its arbitrary notion of "retro": everything created before the year 2000. For this reason, the Dreamcast is retro for them, but not the PS2. In any case, PS2 era consoles (and equivalent powered PCs) may be a good option as the "first modern gaming era", but the problem is: many PS1 era games already play the same, and the PSX controller is almost the same as the PS2 one. So let's go down one more level of the dungeon.

1995) Some argue the PSX era is an intermediate stage between retro and modern gaming. It has many great 2D titles, and many great 3D titles. But are 32 and 64 bit games "retro" or "modern"? Many use multiple voice actors, try to be movies or use a team of 50 people. Budgets increased dramatically and in many ways, the magic was gone. But many games are still super fun and creative! How was this possible? I believe the reason was the experimentation: textured 3D were something new, and games trying to be movies for the first time still didn't focus mostly on the story. But there's a good reason why these platforms barely receive any homebrew games. So maybe we can conclude that this was the first modern gaming generation, right? No, because SNES and Mega Drive projects were 10 man projects, not 1 man. Let's go a little deeper.

1990) I refuse to go down further, it's scary and dark! And cold. Please let's stop here, this generation is mostly 2D with except for some crazy flat-texture experiments. The problem is, these games were already focusing on graphics. And the first games trying to be movies appear here: Final Fantasy on the SNES, Gabriel Knight on the PC... And the best games were often 10+ man projects. So by voting 1990, you accept as your holy saviour that one-man-projects are the only true retro flavour, and only 8 bits and previous stuff is retro. The Pico-8 fantasy console creator is in your team, and that's why he created his virtual console with huge pixels and zero chance for realistic graphics. He wanted one-man projects. He wanted retro. But 8 bit computers had some isometric games that back in the day were called "3D", so... Can you imagine that for some hardcore Atari 2600 fan, 8 bit systems from the 80s are already too modern? Let's explore that possibility.

1982) The only true retro systems are the Atari 2600, the Intellivision, the Apple II and mainframes. Everythin else is way too powerful and the magic of high scores is lost. Nah, what am I saying, this doesn't make sense. Still, I will add this option as the "joke" vote.

So what is the year, in your opinion, retro gaming stops and modern gaming starts?

[andycadley]

Well it wasn't quite what I meant when I was talking about "one man projects" - that was really in terms of using them for development, a case of can I feasibly produce a reasonable effort without needing a whole team. Not necessarily some definition of "retro".

But it's an interesting question anyway, so let's see. For me Dreamcast, PS2, Xbox (the OG one), GameCube is the dawn of "modern" gaming. Everything from that point on is really just refinement. More polygons to smooth out the edges, bigger storage allowing bigger worlds and more in depth storytelling etc.

The earlier 3D systems like PS1 and N64 have a delightful jankiness about them. Nobody knew how full 3D games should be controlled (the original Playstation controller didn't even have analogue sticks!), there were weird 3D but actually plays likes it's 2D games and pre-rendered stuff like Resident Evil pushing boundaries in a similar manner to that which the 8-bit machines did.

[rexbeng]

1914.

[eto]

I second the opinion of andycadley. 

Retrogaming is the era where the hardware limited what ideas could become a game. The era of PS2, Dreamcast, Gamecube is the edge, where retro gaming ends. They have been the last ones, that put a limit on what you can do. You had to deal with those limitations. The generation after them rarely limited ideas - the new limit was number of polygons and/or frame rates, or the size of a game ... I would not consider a PS3 a retro machine anymore. It's more or less the same stuff as today, just less perfect in presentation or with smaller gaming worlds.

There is one system, that doesn't really fit into the retro gaming category however it is so special that it deserves its own spot: The Wii. Due to its library of casual family games and its unique controllers I will definitely keep the Wii for playing some games with the grandkids. And I am sure they will love it - whereas the Xbox One games probably will be of no interest to them.

[dthrone]

To readers of the forum archives in the year 3000, I would love / would have loved to know what your answer is

[Shaun M. Neary]

I second the opinion of andycadley.

Retrogaming is the era where the hardware limited what ideas could become a game. The era of PS2, Dreamcast, Gamecube is the edge, where retro gaming ends. They have been the last ones, that put a limit on what you can do. You had to deal with those limitations. The generation after them rarely limited ideas - the new limit was number of polygons and/or frame rates, or the size of a game ... I would not consider a PS3 a retro machine anymore. It's more or less the same stuff as today, just less perfect in presentation or with smaller gaming worlds.

There is one system, that doesn't really fit into the retro gaming category however it is so special that it deserves its own spot: The Wii. Due to its library of casual family games and its unique controllers I will definitely keep the Wii for playing some games with the grandkids. And I am sure they will love it - whereas the Xbox One games probably will be of no interest to them.

Gonna jump in here on the topic of the Wii as I've gotten back into Nintendo stuff recently, but the original Wii really was a bunch of outdated hardware for the standard of televisions that were at the time. No HDMI, SCART was expected to be used. You could get a component cable for it, but it still only did 480p with that. I'm not sure if it would have done so well by itself had Wii Fit not come out (which was actually the reason I ended up buying one).

A lot of the Wii's faults were corrected with the Wii U thankfully. The Wii U is what the Wii should have been. But the Wii by itself was never a threat to Microsoft or Sony in 2007 in my honest opinion. Had it been the U, I think it would have lead to an interesting time in gaming.

[cwpab]

I personally count motion controls as one of the "sins" of modern gaming, right there with games that try to be movies, DLC, loot boxes and the zero-risk approach due to the high capital invested in each new 3rd person shooter with a B-movie sci-fi plot that's overhyped as the next Hitchcock's Vertigo (99% of games).

[eto]

but it still only did 480p with that.

I have recently connected the Wii to the Amazon Fire 4K OLED TV through an HDMI adapter - and this is extremely crisp and sharp. I am really surprised how good 480p -> 4K upscaling is.

For the casual games we play (Mario Kart, Wii Sports) this is more than enough.

[Prodatron]

The CPC was my first "gaming platform", so for me modern gaming started at the time, when new games couldn't be implemented anymore on the CPC, not even in a limited way.
And that was definitely around 1995.

[lmimmfn]

Im going to be pedantic, the question is "Retro Gaming" rather than "Retro platforms".For me Retro Gaming is gaming on any system where the games are lost to that platform/never remastered or rereleased on newer platforms. With that, i consider gaming on the PS3 to be retro gaming, e.g. playing Metal Gear Solid 4 which is stuck on that platform, if i fire up my PS3 and play it, immediately i'm reminded of playing it back in 2008/2009.

I have next to no nostalgia for the PS3 itself(although it is unique/clunky in terms of having some godawful framerates like Bayonetta vs the Xbox 360 when devs were just pushing it beyond its capabilities or not completely maxing out its SPs) , so i dont really consider the PS3 a retro platform whereas i would consider PS2 to one and again where so many games were released on the PS2 that were exclusive to it or the Xbox and are stuck on those platforms with no rereleases/remakes.

PC is so generic i really have no nostalgia for any specific system although i did love my PC when it had a X58 PC build with Intel Core i7 920(4 cores) where i later replaced that CPU with a 6 core Xeon x5660 and overclocked it to 200% of its original clock, that platform lasted me 8 years for 2009 to 2017.

But i do have nostalgia for PC games like Battlefield 2 which i got back in 2005 and if anytime i fired that up im whisked back to 2005.

So in summary its a mix of having nostalgia for either older system's and or older games.   

[cwpab]

Your tastes are way too modern for me, but it's interesting to read your opinion. 

As someone who stopped buying consoles after 2005, I often feel like I have been transported to the red universe when I talk to a modern gamer.

[reidrac]

The only console I ever bought when it was "current" was the NDS, but yet I think I do "retro-gaming" when I play a PS1 game (emulated). Similarly, back in the day I only had contact with the CPC and the speccy, but that doesn't stop me from enjoying the MSX and the C64, despite not having any nostalgia.

So I don't think is necessarily "nostalgia". When I play PS2 games, it doesn't feel "retro" to me, but I guess it is because I haven't played PS5 (or whatever) games; so the PS2 doesn't feel retro to me.

What I'm trying to say perhaps is that "retro-gaming" is definitely a very difficult term to define, because it depends on each one of us and our own experiences.

[lmimmfn]

Your tastes are way too modern for me, but it's interesting to read your opinion. 

As someone who stopped buying consoles after 2005, I often feel like I have been transported to the red universe when I talk to a modern gamer.

I understand, but I don't consider myself a modern gamers, I've been gaming since owning the terrible Binotone Pong system since around 1980. Only really got my real computer aka CPC in 85/86.
I just like gaming and have continued to enjoy it since  even into modern gaming.

[cwpab]

FUN FACTS: Pitfall (1982) was made by 1 person. Bruce Lee (1984), by 2. Donkey Kong (1982), by 13. Tomb Raider (1996), by 43. The Secret of Monkey Island (1990), by 83. Marvel Spiderman 2 (2023), by 3,586.

Sources (please note the "thanks" were not counted as part of the teams):
https://www.mobygames.com/game/8793/pitfall/credits/atari-2600/
https://www.mobygames.com/game/191/bruce-lee/credits/atari-8-bit/
https://www.mobygames.com/game/574/donkey-kong/credits/arcade/
https://www.mobygames.com/game/616/the-secret-of-monkey-island/credits/dos/
https://www.mobygames.com/game/348/tomb-raider/credits/dos/
https://www.mobygames.com/game/210733/marvel-spider-man-2/credits/playstation-5/

[ZorrO]

This question in this topic is like trying to determine once and for all the date when "yesterday" was. 
It's impossible. The answer is relative, subjective and temporary, and will never be different.

[VincentGR]

1995.
I think that the PSX was the last pioneer, as it also gave something that was missing.
Not my cup of tea, but it did. 

[ZorrO]

Thats right. I think PSX was last of machines on which happend some groundbreaking ideas, new genres and series were created that lasted for years. Because later just grow resolutions and megabytes nothing else. I have no idea what for. This only means you have to wait longer for the premiere and installation. And all these details in graphics, like thousands of leaves on a tree, are only distracting because they are not necessary to complete fabule. And if you want to experience sight of a real leaf, turn off computer and go to forest. You don't have to wait for loading because it is already there and waiting for you.

[Shaun M. Neary]

I personally count motion controls as one of the "sins" of modern gaming, right there with games that try to be movies, DLC, loot boxes and the zero-risk approach due to the high capital invested in each new 3rd person shooter with a B-movie sci-fi plot that's overhyped as the next Hitchcock's Vertigo (99% of games).

Wow, you've lumped someone with a speeding offence into the same prison cell as a convicted murderer!

Motion controls have their place in certain games. Guitar Hero and Rock Band for example certainly wouldn't be as fun without having to raise the guitar controller up for star power. Wii Fit helped me lose quite a bit of weight. Granted I could have joined a gym and gone jogging for it, but not everyone wants to go out in miserable weather or share a space with a bunch of sweaty steroid freaks either. And Dance Dance Revolution if that counts is a lot of fun.

If they dominated the gaming industry, I'd fully agree with you, but they didn't. They were an addition, a novelty.

[cwpab]

Nice metaphore!   But unaccurate... Because I don't dislike things just because they dominate. The PS2 is one of my favorite consoles and I absolutely hate the analog buttons (I play with the PSX controller for this reason). In the end, for me these are unnecessary "forced" revolutionary control methods, whis is something that modern gaming loves to do since 1995 or so. Before that, it was more about adding more buttons in places you could press (not always!).

[Shaun M. Neary]

Nice metaphore!  But unaccurate... Because I don't dislike things just because they dominate. The PS2 is one of my favorite consoles and I absolutely hate the analog buttons (I play with the PSX controller for this reason). In the end, for me these are unnecessary "forced" revolutionary control methods, whis is something that modern gaming loves to do since 1995 or so. Before that, it was more about adding more buttons in places you could press (not always!).

I think as time moved on, especially from 2000 onwards, additional controls were were as games became more complex.

Try plugging a PS1 controller into a PS2 and play any of the 5 GTA games released for that format. It's not pretty at all, aiming is next to impossible!
Don't get me wrong, like yourself, I do prefer simpler controls at the best of times, but that's just my personal taste of game, but there comes a time when that era is dead. And bad controls have ruined games for the longest time.

Take Amstrad Renegade for example, and I *love* Renegade and appreciate the control method was to replicate the arcade (Breakthru was done the same way), but it took a LOT of heat for it's control system, especially when the C64 and Spectrum were able to do it with a stick with more moves (the 128k Speccy had the shoulder throw). So in a lot of people's eyes, the controls ruined that game. And when you look at how well Target Renegade was done, controls wise. It does beg the question why this couldn't have been implemented?

But I'm going off on a tangent here. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I do see both sides of the argument.  

[cwpab]

I wish I could see into the future and see how 2100 games look and control. I assume they'll still exist!

[VincentGR]

Take Amstrad Renegade for example

Finished the sequel multiple times from back then till today.
But I agree, the first one is unplayable for me.

[Shaun M. Neary]

Take Amstrad Renegade for example

Finished the sequel multiple times from back then till today.
But I agree, the first one is unplayable for me.

If you can get used to keys with the left hand as well, it's actually easier than with the joystick. But the keys alternate depending on the way you're facing.
It takes a bit of practice but it's doable.

[GUNHED]

Retrogaming started when they started to call Gaming RetroGaming instead of Gaming. 

Commercial era will not end as long as people buy software for money for a system.

But I'm sure that was not the point and I missed the topic. Or did I miss the point and it was another topic? In the land of Z80 everything is so much more easy. 

[cwpab]

Here's a very interesting 1h24min podcast with John Romero and John Carmack from 1 month ago to celebrate Doom's 30th anniversary:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvAkaJsvAXs

What's especially interesting is that Carmack admits that Doom was the technical/creative "sweet spot": starting with Quake, even creating maps was too complex both for the team and for random external users because "you had to be an architect".