When is it called "retro"?

mr_lou · 17:57, 16 February 13

Holding a retro-gaming-event where people can meet, bringing their retro computer or console from their childhood, spawns the question: When is it called retro?

Do we say the machine has to be 20 years old at least? Or is it retro when it's 10 years old? How old must it be to be called retro, in your opinion?

I found this page, where consoles are split up into generations. At what generation do we no longer call it retro, in your opinion?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_video_game_consoles

db6128 · 18:04, 16 February 13

Everything after Sega stopped making consoles.

Nah, it's a good question. At least for me, I think of retro as stuff from my childhood, and I don't tend to add new consoles to that definition in my mind as time passes! I guess a lot of us would be unconsciously biased in a similar way.

I do think of several different levels of retro, though, and they can be conveniently blocked into groups based on their word-lengths but which also correspond roughly to periods of time: 8-bit, 16-bit, 32-bit, 64-bit, and 'boring modern stuff'.

In seriousness, I still need to get an Xbox 360. I don't know if I'll be interested in much new stuff after that, though.

Bryce · 21:07, 16 February 13

16Bit or less is retro for me. I sort by technology, not by age.

Bryce.

Sykobee (Briggsy) · 22:47, 16 February 13

A tough one when you think about it.

I think we'd agree that the Atari Jaguar and the Sega Saturn were retro, however. Both companies, of course, dead in the hardware world. The Dreamcast ... tough call. My heart says no, but my head says it should be as it's old and dead - it's just that it's actually pretty darn modern with large-scale 3D game environments, etc.

The Gamecube still exists inside the Wii, and probably the Wii U is software compatible too (just the discs aren't supported), so it's not really retro. Good console though.

The PS2 was sold as new up until recently, and official games were still being released. It isn't retro, despite only being a year younger than the Dreamcast. Maybe that makes the Dreamcast non-retro, as it is merely a failed console amongst decidedly non-retro peers in its generation.

So ... how about "last official sale of new hardware/software was at least ~15 years ago"? Not stuff found in a warehouse, but actively manufactured, shipped and sold.

steve · 23:54, 16 February 13

I would say it depends on commercial software production, if publishers still produce software in thousands of units then it is not retro.

db6128 · 00:10, 17 February 13

Quote from: Sykobee (Briggsy) on 22:47, 16 February 13The Gamecube still exists inside the Wii, and probably the Wii U is software compatible too (just the discs aren't supported), so it's not really retro. Good console though.

I wouldn't call the GC retro yet whether or not new consoles were backward-compatible with it, especially not if they were only 'theoretically' capable of playing the games as this implies.

But I have to question the implication that they do have the capability, just buried inside. The Wii lost backward-compatibility years ago. The Wii U never had it. I doubt the reason is that they lack a compatible drive (and see below). Sure, the CPU and GPU are still PowerPC- and ATi/AMD-based respectively, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they're still code-compatible in theory. I doubt the lack of backwards-compatibility is due to the differing size/format of the optical disks. Anyway, since GCN disks are just smaller Wii ones, the drives are probably capable of reading them in theory, if they knew what to do with them. So, again, the cause probably lies elsewhere in the hardware.

Maybe Ninty are just too lazy to include abstraction/emulation layers. More likely, the fact that they specifically dropped backward-compatibility several years into the Wii's lifespan* suggests that some other, somewhat costly, element was involved in retaining said compatibility. I doubt that would be the drive, as I can't imagine it costing any extra to be able to read smaller disks. It seems more likely that it was a supporting chip or something.

* Which, it must be said, was incredibly lame, not to mention done very quietly without any warning on boxes or anything; people would only know if they were lucky enough to be told by someone else.

Axelay · 06:17, 17 February 13

I tend to regard "retro" as the pre-3D hardware platforms, so generally 16 bit and earlier. I make the distinction there because when games became primarily 3D, it seemed to me like there was a slight "shift" in games due to the way 3D brought both new problems and solutions to old ideas. But I dont think games as such have changed a lot beyond improvements in visuals, so I dont see much reason to think of games on something like the PS1 as retro.

Quote from: db6128 on 00:10, 17 February 13
* Which, it must be said, was incredibly lame, not to mention done very quietly without any warning on boxes or anything; people would only know if they were lucky enough to be told by someone else.

I agree generally that that sort of feature drop should be handled better, but it seemed to me that all the platforms dropped BC without much fanfare, and the Wii did maintain BC for significantly longer than you seem to be suggesting.

Gryzor · 12:53, 17 February 13

Retro is in the eye of the beholder.

I'd say for our generation it's up till the Dreamcast or something like that? Although the Playstation was released at the same time roughly, I don't feel it being retro enough given for how long it was produced in its versions.

TheCorfiot · 21:43, 17 February 13

I would say as soon as it is out of production or replaced by its next generation or successor then it starts becoming retro...

After that I group them as retro console, retro 8bit, retro 16bit, retro 32bit etc....

But thats just me

khisanth · 22:09, 17 February 13

Often people say something is retro when its not being made any more, some say anything older than 10 years which would usually accommodate that. However I think a nice adaptable definition is any system that makes you feel nostalgic.

Retro will start feeling less and less retro as time goes on and systems are on the market for longer and longer.

steve · 22:14, 17 February 13

Once we nail down when retro applies, we should think about vintage and antique.

Sykobee (Briggsy) · 22:34, 17 February 13

Quote from: db6128 on 00:10, 17 February 13
But I have to question the implication that they do have the capability, just buried inside. The Wii lost backward-compatibility years ago. The Wii U never had it. I doubt the reason is that they lack a compatible drive (and see below).

I wasn't aware the Wii lost the ability to play Gamecube games, as my Wii plays them just fine. To remove that capability without any announcement is really quite rude.

The Wii was merely a faster Gamecube with a fancy controller system, WiFi and Bluetooth. But the Wii used full size discs, hence it came with an optical drive that could slot load a small Gamecube disc via a special mechanism. Lose that mechanism (to save some money), and you lose the ability to play Gamecube games.

khisanth · 23:50, 17 February 13

it better not have had it removed! I have not got round to playing Ocarina of Time and Windwaker on it yet!

db6128 · 02:31, 18 February 13

It depends what Wii you have. The 'family pack' consoles, which I believe included the first black models to be manufactured, were the first to have backwards-compatibility removed, IIRC. Any Wii after that will also lack it. I believe you can tell from the style of the case:

AFAIK, if your console doesn't look like the one at the top, it won't play GameCube games.

TotO · 09:12, 18 February 13

When you use deprecated systems.

Gryzor · 09:15, 18 February 13

Quote from: TotO on 09:12, 18 February 13
When you use deprecated systems.

So, say, my Pentium is retro? Maybe, but then we go into the 'platform' discussion - the Pentium is part of the PC family, so it's current. But what about all those games from the early nineties, running on PCs?

I think it's not a systems issue...

TotO · 09:20, 18 February 13

Is your Pentium can allow to play recent games or only old ?
Is your Pentium can allow to use recent softwares or only old ?

Sorry, but the Pentium is deprecated for the consumer and for the market.
Another reason is, because it's no more produced.
It's not an architecture problem.

Gryzor · 09:25, 18 February 13

Still, it's not a deprecated system, it's just an old CPU. That's different.

TotO · 09:31, 18 February 13

Quote from: Gryzor on 09:25, 18 February 13
Still, it's not a deprecated system, it's just an old CPU. That's different.

Sorry, but it's deprecated like all products that are no more manufactured, as it's not recommended to make new designs using it.
Now, call it like you want. You will just not be able to answer to the topic question.

Gryzor · 09:36, 18 February 13

You're not getting my point

You talked about systems, yet the PC is a system that, throughout its core components history has supported titles retro and new alike. So we can't define it strictly as a system thing. And it answers the topic question pretty well - the PC is definitely not a retro platform, I guess

Sure, it's a retro CPU per se, but the system/platform lives on!

TotO · 09:46, 18 February 13

It's the words used in the electronic and computing industry, related to the life time of a component or a full product.
You can read them when you download datasheets, or simply when the manufacturer annonce that an architecture goes to the past.

QuoteSure, it's a retro CPU per se, but the system/platform lives on!

Like I said, you can't give an answer using a retro-user point of view.

khisanth · 11:27, 18 February 13

Mine is an original one so should be fine

beaker · 13:26, 18 February 13

I like Tot0's explanation of Retro being something considered obsolete by modern standards. For me, the thing is most games I bought from the 90's won't run on on a modern Windows 7/8 machines straight out of the box without things like DOSBox, a fan made patch or stopping explorer as I've found over the last few months so I would consider the architecture/platform of the machines has moved on enough that older PC's could be considered retro. Certainly if I bought a Pentium now I'd buy it for DOS/Windows XP to run these older games on.

Gryzor · 13:36, 18 February 13

Yeah, but... the other day I was playing Winroids (a great little Asteroids clone from '94 or '95 I think) on a modern box with no problems. Is that retro or not? For me it's retro because:
a-it's a port of a really retro game
b-it was released 18 years ago, a safe retro-distance.
But I played it on my modern system, which is definitely non-retro.
What's more, you have to consider the divide between OS and hardware - noone said you can't run Win95 on your i7 (heck, even a dual boot would be trivial).

So there's still issues with such a way of defining things when it comes to PCs.

beaker · 13:52, 18 February 13

Would it be trivial though? I would have thought you'd have problems getting drivers for most of the modern hardware which could cause unforeseen problems/graphic glitches and some games would run way too fast as per example which is running on an i7:

Where as matching hardware and software designed in the same period must be simpler and guarantee success?

Feel free to correct me, this is just as I understand it at the moment

News:

When is it called "retro"?