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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_video_game_consoles)
Everything after Sega stopped making consoles. :P
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.
16Bit or less is retro for me. I sort by technology, not by age.
Bryce.
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.
I would say it depends on commercial software production, if publishers still produce software in thousands of units then it is not retro.
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.
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.
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.
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 :laugh:
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.
Once we nail down when retro applies, we should think about vintage and antique. :laugh:
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.
it better not have had it removed! I have not got round to playing Ocarina of Time and Windwaker on it yet!
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:
(http://webassets.scea.com/forums/15523_Wiis3.jpg)
AFAIK, if your console doesn't look like the one at the top, it won't play GameCube games.
When you use deprecated systems.
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...
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.
Still, it's not a deprecated system, it's just an old CPU. That's different.
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.
You're not getting my point :D
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 :D
Sure, it's a retro CPU per se, but the system/platform lives on!
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. ;)
Mine is an original one so should be fine
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.
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.
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:
MS DOS Win311 Core i7 X58.mp4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EM6q5iuy1oM#)
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 :D
Actually hardware problems are quite recent - what with SATA etc, where even much later versions of Windows had issues. (speaking of which, is Windows XP retro because it needs SATA drivers to install? Or, would Windows 3.11 come out of the retro domain if they released SATA drivers from it??). But until quite recently I was able to flawlessly run Windows 95.
Quite a grey area...
Also (we're going in circles right now), are we talking OS, platform, system or what?
T
PS I recently installed OS/2 Warp on my secondary (arcade cab) PC, that was fun... :)
Well, I was (badly) making the argument that you needed the old hardware to run "all" of the old software properly without emulation/hacks/patches so older PC's could be considered retro ;)
Just for fun my mate sent me this link naming old DOS games.. I sucked and only got 36/50 :(
http://www.starfieldsoftware.co.uk/Games/DOS/DOS-Screenshot-Challenge.aspx (http://www.starfieldsoftware.co.uk/Games/DOS/DOS-Screenshot-Challenge.aspx)
Well, yes, I understand your argument, but since the whole thing is an issue of semantics you can't nail it down with such a simple definition... My own point was, there are very old games that still run, and then there are games much newer that have troubles. So it's kind of hard to define the target.
Great little trip down memory lane that test, got 45 -though quite a few were best guesses.
But, you can't reduce the name "retro" to the games only. ;)
- retrogaming
- retroprogramming
- retrocomputing
All are used to define things that you done on a deprecated hardware.
(understand, for leisure. No more viable for the market)For peoples reading french :
QuoteLe retrocomputing, ou rétro-informatique, est une activité consistant à utiliser du matériel et des logiciels informatiques obsolètes. Il s'agit d'un loisir ludique et/ou intellectuel. Concrètement, il peut s'agir de se divertir avec des jeux vidéo anciens (retrogaming) [...]
Score: 45 - and there's been a lot of best guesses. Seems I'm lucky.
I also think I've found a bug:
The screen to supposedly Champions of Krynn is actually from Death Knights of Krynn, AFAIK. There has never been Death Knights in Champions of Krynn.
As to retro, ToT0 and beaker are right. Don't forget that the PC is a strange beast, it retains compatibility at all cost for most of its time. Yet, it is hard to get "attached" to a PC box in the way of normal "retro" hardware.
Also, as you said, Gryzor, depending on many factors, a retro game on the PC platform might even be running on the latest hardware, while relatively recent games even have problems (e.g. GTA: SA has problems with newer boxes). That doesn't make the point invalid, as it is a game of luck.
Oh, I wouldn't disagree with the distinction between software and hardware, but it's you who only mentioned "systems" and I made the distinction :)
As for the french definition, alors, c'est une tautologie, nothing more :)
Here's another definition which takes a roundabout way: retro is this period in a product's (after)life: new->established->well-used->old-and-boring->retro. So, anything that has gone out of the mode but makes a comeback.
Not a perfect defintion, but it does cover quite a bit. Also, by this definition a Pentium CPU is not really retro because by itself, since the platform (PC) is still here, doesn't make a comeback.
Also, vintage is, I think, retro from another generation: if you discover a cool 50s typewriter that's not quite retro for you, because you're not directly attached to it. For us it'd be vintage. For my grandad, when he died aged 106, it was just old (not even retro).
It is indeed very difficult to define.
As for machines, I think I'd be willing to call a PC retro up to the 486 as long as it is running DOS. That's a personal perception of course.
But people would have to bring a 486 then (or 386). It wouldn't be acceptable bringing a brand new PC, and just run DosBox on it. That would be emulation. And I will have no emulation at my retro event. ;)
Even if their brand new machine could install DOS, so that it technically wouldn't be emulation, it still wouldn't be retro in my opinion. It's a brand new machine! It looks new. Feels new. Nothing retro about it, no matter how old the game would be.
I'm also a bit split regarding monitors. When people bring LCD monitors for retro events, it takes away a lot of the nostalgia I think. They should bring CRT monitors instead.
So software can't be retro? There are a few emulators now that can run Windows 95, I'd say if it can be emulated at a reasonable pace, then it's probably retro. :)
Quote from: mahlemiut on 21:41, 18 February 13
So software can't be retro? There are a few emulators now that can run Windows 95, I'd say if it can be emulated at a reasonable pace, then it's probably retro. :)
My initial post said:
Quote from: mr_lou on 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?
Leave emulators out of it.
Quote from: mr_lou on 21:57, 18 February 13
Leave emulators out of it.
Sorry, but I share his argument about the emulator. Because, it's mainly used in the industry when a system come deprecated and the softwares can't more run on the next systems... But you keep an interest to use it today.
So, this argument help to define what is a retrogaming system.
May be, you initial post said:
QuoteHolding 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?
But, sometime you have to elarge the scope to not stay limited by your mind.
The fact that peoples meet and bring their retro systems from their childhood is just nostalgia (the same with cars, bikes, ...) and don't help to answer to the question "When is it called retro".
My mistake. I didn't mean to just ask "When is it called retro?", because "it" may refer to whatever you like. Bicycles.Wheelchairs. Televisions.
I meant to ask "When is a gaming console called retro?".
Terribly sorry for not being more clear.
So, again, please leave emulators (and other irrelevant topics related to the question, like e.g. bicycles etc) out of it.
Quote from: Bryce on 21:07, 16 February 13
16Bit or less is retro for me. I sort by technology, not by age.
My PC-FX is definitely retro even though it's technically 32-bit. ;)
It's also interesting in that to write any code for it, you have to run all the documentation (if you're lucky enough to find it in the first place) through google translate as it's all in Japanese!
Quote from: ralferoo on 09:44, 19 February 13
It's also interesting in that to write any code for it, you have to run all the documentation (if you're lucky enough to find it in the first place) through google translate as it's all in Japanese!
Unless of course you happen to be Japanese? :D
Bryce.
The PS2 is today retro too, for peoples wanting to replay to Gran Turismo 3, Time Spliters, Unreal Tournament, SSX... They have 16 years old when playing the first time, and today close to 30... :p
Quote from: Sykobee (Briggsy) on 22:47, 16 February 13
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.
I think I agree with this thought the most. I don't think it's retro the day after it went out of production. There has to be a space of 10-15 years or so from the stop-of-production till present day.
Quote from: khisanth on 22:09, 17 February 13
However I think a nice adaptable definition is any system that makes you feel nostalgic.
Such a definition can't be used in relation to holding a retro-gaming event. It would also render the category "Retro Consoles" in a website relatively useless, since many people would then have to browse through lots of stuff not relevant to them.
Obviously the definition will always be different depending on who you ask. That's clear to see in this thread too.
But can it really be true that we can't agree just 90% on how to define "retro" in relation to computers (hardware) and consoles, when talking "holding a retro-gaming event"?
Surely (and hopefully) no one in this forum will say that it's retro to bring your brand new PC with 30 inch LCD screen - and then run emulators on it?!?!
(For the record, if you feel like that I'll never speak to you again. Go away).
So..... IF we say that "it's retro when it's been 15 years since it went out of production", I wonder which machines then can't be considered to be retro by that definition. The link I posted in the first post in this thread, only shows release dates of the machines, not when they went out of production....
Quote from: mr_lou on 10:32, 19 February 13
So..... IF we say that "it's retro when it's been 15 years since it went out of production", I wonder which machines then can't be considered to be retro by that definition. The link I posted in the first post in this thread, only shows release dates of the machines, not when they went out of production....
That definition sounds problematic (http://au.gamespot.com/news/nintendo-to-end-famicom-and-super-famicom-production-6029220?). ;)
Quote from: Axelay on 14:00, 19 February 13That definition sounds problematic (http://au.gamespot.com/news/nintendo-to-end-famicom-and-super-famicom-production-6029220?). ;)
Indeed! Wow, I'm impressed.
Well, maybe it's country dependent then, and should be when the console stopped being sold in the shops instead?
Nintendo tryed to stop the Famicom Disk games rent service (in the street, like we do with movies) in Japan in 1993, but too much peoples has protested. So, they leave it 10 years more... And in 2003, some peoples have protested again because they stop this service. Understand that they already pay for playing retro-gamings, like we do today using virtual console now. :D
I find that date cut-offs are problematic. For instance, while the Dreamcast is totally retro for me, the PS2 is definitely not. Yes, I know it doesn't answer technically to the "final selling date" but you get the idea.
To think that Retro Gamer is considering PS2 coverage now that the PS4 came out... Ugh!
Quote from: Gryzor on 19:21, 30 November 13
I find that date cut-offs are problematic. For instance, while the Dreamcast is totally retro for me, the PS2 is definitely not. Yes, I know it doesn't answer technically to the "final selling date" but you get the idea.
In this case, you also think that generation definitions are problematic then, because both PS2 and Dreamcast belongs to the same generation.
Dreamcast being from 1999 and PS2 from 2000... what is it about PS2 that makes it not retro to you then, when Dreamcast is?
Yeah, exactly, forgot to mention the dates. Even the Gamecube, a further year down the road, feels more retro to me.
Why? Have no idea. Of course it helped that the DC failed quite quickly, but that's not the only thing; its titles have a more retro feel...
Quote from: Gryzor on 20:13, 30 November 13
Yeah, exactly, forgot to mention the dates. Even the Gamecube, a further year down the road, feels more retro to me.
Why? Have no idea. Of course it helped that the DC failed quite quickly, but that's not the only thing; its titles have a more retro feel...
It's interesting, because it was exactly the PS2 that spawned the question in the first place. It belongs to the 6th generation and it's from year 2000
Xbox (2001 also 6th generation) definitely isn't retro in my opinion either.
Dreamcast (1999) also belongs to 6th generation, so logically it shouldn't be categorized as retro by me, if I don't include PS2 and Xbox. I have absolutely no experience with the Dreamcast though.
I think, for the events I'm holding, I'll allow machines up to and including 5th generation.
Do get a DC. I got one a few years back and I swear, I haven't loved another 'strange' (to me) machine like that one!
Quote from: Gryzor on 20:47, 30 November 13I haven't loved another 'strange' (to me) machine like that one!
Me neither, the DC games catalogue was a real shock to me. So many amazing, crazy, creative and original games. Pure FUN.
Even got the mic to talk to my man-fish... and Puyo Pop Fever is the best two-player game I've ever played. And Under Defeat my all-time favorite shmup. And don't even get me started about Rez...
Quote from: McKlain on 20:55, 30 November 13
Me neither, the DC games catalogue was a real shock to me. So many amazing, crazy, creative and original games. Pure FUN.
Shenmue is still an amazing game. Well ahead of it's time.
Yes, from what I hear. Never managed to get into it though... probably because I never had the time it deserved.