When does a generation become classic gaming? The last gen is almost there if not now

[Rickstilwell1]

A search didn't bring a thread of any of these ideas up. So here we go.

Game Boy Advance, Playstation 2, GameCube and Xbox are all 10 years old now and the system that kicked off that generation, the Dreamcast is often already considered classic due to starting two years prior. A new generation is on the horizon with Nintendo's announcement and Game Boy Advance has already become a grandfather of the 3DS. Do you think that most people will shift all talk from that generation from the modern gaming forum into the classic gaming forum? Is it about time to do that as a community? As with the Neo Geo AES and Atari 2600 lasting well beyond their generation, I would definitely not say that the PS2 is part of this generation regardless of whether or not it had new games in the last few years.

If it is not yet time to do that even though the 3DS has kicked off the new generation already, when will it happen? Does it happen the minute that the new Nintendo is released in stores?

[buzz_n64]

I think a definite line would be a system and games that are no longer being commercially sold and manufactured. The PS2 is still being made, although it is over ten years old, that doesn't necessarily qualify it as classic, only last generation. By the time the next generation of systems are laid upon us, I think the PS2/GC/Xbox generation may slowly enter the classic gaming generation; however, the PS2 remains the sole holdout so far.

[Drath]

There was some idiot that wrote into Retro Gamer appalled that the magazine ran a retrospective on the Nintendo 64 in one issue and said that the Nintendo 64 is not a classic gaming console. He basically didn't really do any justification, he simply said that the Nintendo 64 is as classic as the Xbox is. I think he maybe didn't realize that it was released 15 years ago? Come on.

I think the 10 year (decade) marker is a pretty good indication of what "classic" is. If you think about it, once the Xbox was released, people considered the Super Nintendo classic (10 year difference).

[Kid Ice]

I have strong feelings about exactly what constitutes "classic gaming" but I don't want to get into that here (have already done that in other threads).

For the purposes of the DP boards, I would just leave it like it is, if not BROADEN the modern gaming forum rather than move discussions to classic gaming.

As it is now, classic gaming goes up to the first gen of CD-based gaming (3DO, PSX, Sat etc.). That seems fitting to me. Now on a personal level, I will NEVER consider PlayStation and N64 titles "classic games", but for the purposes of the DP boards I think it works.

If anything I would move the CD-based systems to modern gaming (along with cart-based systems from the CD era like N64, DS, etc.)

[Aussie2B]

If anything I would move the CD-based systems to modern gaming (along with cart-based systems from the CD era like N64, DS, etc.)

But... then that would place discussions about games that date back as far as the late '80s into "modern" gaming. o_O Unless you're exclusively counting systems that ONLY used CDs, rather than systems that expanded into CDs with peripherals.

The bottom line is that whether someone thinks the specific term "classic" should only be applied to pre-crash gaming or not, something like PS1 is no more "modern" than something 10, 15 years older. It's all old. The second section was created because the discussion of older games was being drowned out by the discussion of current games. I think "Current Gaming" would be a more appropriate title, but a cleaner line had to be drawn because you get these fuzzy transition periods. But yeah, now that some years have passed, it's starting to feel awkward that discussion of stuff like Dreamcast, GameCube, and GBA is still regulated to a section that's normally filled with discussion of the Wii, 360, PS3, DS, and PSP (and now those are going to fade too with the new systems coming out).

[Baloo]

For me, classic gaming goes up to the Dreamcast, and anything after that (Handhelds included, I don't consider GBA to be classic at all) isn't classic IMO.

But the term classic is depending on your POV really, I'm sure there are some like Kid Ice who don't think the PS1 or N64 are classic systems either. I think it has something to do with the company that created the system AND how fast the hardware goes out of date.

[Kellhus]

Yeah to be honest I'll never consider any console released after the Dreamcast retro and even that's pushing it.

[Gameguy]

I don't really consider the N64 to be classic, I'm kind of on the fence with the PS1. I don't really have a definite set of rules for what ended the classic era, I would have said 32-bit systems but there's the 64-bit Atari Jaguar which came out before the Saturn, and I wouldn't have included the PS1 at all but I do think of the Saturn as classic so the PS1 is still in. I don't think something is classic just based on age alone. What makes a car a classic? Is a '94 Dodge Caravan a classic car now?

Classic and Modern gaming could just be merged together based on how few new posts get added to them now, there really doesn't need to be two sections does there?

[Cornelius]

I'm sure I'm not the first with this perspective, but the only way that works for me is to look at them more in terms of 'era'. Something akin to music where there are the Golden Oldies, classic rock, 80s, etc. Doing straight up generations is too narrow and confining, though, so it'd have to be broader than that.

But dividing it up further on a forum like this doesn't make any sense until there is enough activity to justify an additional split; no sense dividing a forum that only has 10 new threads a week up (that's a total guess). For the bulk of the crowd here I think it would be awkward to have GC/Xbox/PS2 in the Classic section, so staying the way it is seems the best option.

[FoxNtd]

I'm sure I'm not the first with this perspective, but the only way that works for me is to look at them more in terms of 'era'. Something akin to music where there are the Golden Oldies, classic rock, 80s, etc. Doing straight up generations is too narrow and confining, though, so it'd have to be broader than that.

You beat me to it, but I'd like to elaborate a little more. Many are using "classic" as an age marker (seems like 10+ years old is the line being drawn.) I don't think that's the right way to do it. As time goes on, the meaning of classic makes less sense. You're going to bundle things like Famicom with things like Dreamcast. Does that make sense? Only in the age perspective.

Like music, I look at it more as a style sort of thing. What kinds of games and how they were based on the hardware they were made for.. separating 2D and 3D is one easy factor to look at, but there are more than this. To repeat the music analogy, I can't ever consider something like Nirvana or Stone Temple Pilots to be "classic rock"; I will not group that music with stuff like Led Zeppelin or The Who. It won't matter how old the music of those two bands becomes, its relative time and style distance to "classic rock" will never change. :popcorn:

In short, perhaps it makes more sense to use "classical" as the term to describe the first few steps.. now where to draw that line is the question.

[j_factor]

To me classic is anything pre-last-gen. Dreamcast is not classic IMO. DC and up is modern. You can't go by a strict age IMO. PSX games from 2002 are classic before PS2 launch games are.

I don't really agree with the analogy with classic rock, as classic rock never meant a particular age or even era. I would never call The Ramones' debut a classic rock album, but there are albums significantly later that I would.

[Rickstilwell1]

To me classic is anything pre-last-gen. Dreamcast is not classic IMO. DC and up is modern. You can't go by a strict age IMO. PSX games from 2002 are classic before PS2 launch games are.

I don't really agree with the analogy with classic rock, as classic rock never meant a particular age or even era. I would never call The Ramones' debut a classic rock album, but there are albums significantly later that I would.

See using pre-last-gen as the basis, the new Nintendo console next year will make the Gamecube just that going by this definition.

[swlovinist]

"Classic" and Modern are just not enough categories anymore. The history of systems and computers is too broad. I agree with eras, and have classified the the following eras with the help of Jon Rose on the PRGE website

http://www.retrogamingexpo.com/console_guide.php

In short there are currently 4 Eras, and I would probably say that this next wave of consoles will probably start a new era. The four eras that I would classify would be

Classic(1972-1983)

Neo Classic(1985-1992)

CD rom era(1992-1998)

Modern Era(1999-current)

Again this is what I use to instruct my current college class. You cant find a way that would please everyone, but I do think that more forum categories are needed.

just my two cents.

[Orion Pimpdaddy]

The definition of classic differs a lot from person to person, but having the PS2 as the dividing point still works today. After all, starting with the PS2, you get systems that work well on an LCD, and the systems before then were more CRT friendly. (the Dreamcast and VGA box complicates things)

Also, online play and first person shooters became popular during the PS2 era, things that still carry a lot of weight today. (notice I said popular, not invented)

Let's wait a while before lumping the PS2 into the classic category. Maybe after these three things happen: stopped production of PS2 games, stopped production of PS2 systems, and the release of the next three games systems.

[j_factor]

See using pre-last-gen as the basis, the new Nintendo console next year will make the Gamecube just that going by this definition.

I would wait until all next-gen consoles are out and established before bumping it.

[Richie]

The problem here is that terms that can be used to describe both general design and general time, such as classic or modern, tend to misrepresent what they're meant to describe.

Also, I think one could make an argument that all video games are modern.

[kupomogli]

Anything that has two generations ahead of it, N64, PSX, and Saturn, I'd consider classic.

One of the definitions that Webster's Dictionary refers to as classic is "historically memorable." So technically, all systems prior to the current gen, aside from the PS2 which is still being made could be considered classic. However. Additionally, another definition given is "serving as a standard of excellence : of recognized value." In a way, that definition would mean the removal of certain systems that are considered "classic."

Classic can really mean so many different thinks so it's not really anything that anyone can truly pinpoint. It's going to be different to everyone.

Someone mentioned retro though. Retro and classic are completely different. I wouldn't ever consider 16bit as retro. To me, retro would be 8bit or lower. Although the purest form would be the first video game consoles released.

[MachineGex]

I personally consider anything like the 2600, NES, SNES, Genesis, ..... classic. A rough rule is if it has a cart slot(the N64 is an exception cuz I dont consider it a classic).

When the PSX and N64 came along, they were game changers. It went from old-school graphics to polygon(3d-ish) graphics and it marked an end of an era and a beginning of a new era in my mind.

I have a hard time putting N64 or PSX into the same category as the 2600.

There really needs to be more than two categories. Something like below. Now I realize this is probably too many sub categories, but it's how I see the systems in my mind. I have not listed all the systems and it isn't perfect, it is just how I personally view the breakdown.

Classic Era systems:

Classic Era 1st Stage: Atari 2600, Coleco, Intelevision, Vectrex, maybe the 5200

Classic Era 2nd Stage: Atari 7800, NES, Master System

Classic Era 3rd Stage: Genesis, T-16, SNES

Beginning of the Modern Era systems:

Modern Era 1st Stage: PSX, N64, Saturn

Modern Era 2nd Stage: Xbox, GameCube, DreamCast, PS2

Modern Era 3rd Stage: 360, PS3, Wii

[jonebone]

I just consider anything not currently in production as classic. And the really old stuff I consider retro.

[Parodius Duh!]

Games should be grouped like how comic books are:

Atari, Coleco, Vectrex, etc. - The ANTIQUE AGE
Nintendo, Master System, Etc. - The GOLDEN AGE
SNES, Genesis, Turbo Grafx, etc. - The SILVER AGE
N64, PS1, dreamcast,etc. - The BRONZE AGE
PS2, Xbox, gamecube, etc. - The MODERN AGE
PS3, 360, wii- The CURRENT AGE

[Swamperon]

I don't reeally think in terms of Classic and Modern. I go by the Generational divides instead, seems easier. But if I had to, I'd say whatever is currently being sold new on the market is modern.

For the forums, if I were bring to up a DC topic I'd start it in the Classic section (often see it being mentioned there). Probably Xbox and GC too. Neither console was really active past 2005, sans Zelda: TP.

[Aussie2B]

In terms of the board, I don't think we get enough activity to justify more divisions than the two. I think it's pretty intuitive as well. You go to one if you want to talk about current games; you go to the other if you want to talk about something classic/retro/old. I don't see any sense in segregating the 2600 players from the NES players and what have you.

As I see it, people are generally reluctant to apply the term "classic" to games unless it was a system that was around during their childhood or prior. Since there's also usually a positive connotation to the word "classic", a lot of people don't want to apply it to "new-fangled" games that came later on and they don't think as highly of, even if those games are as much as 20+ years old now. Even I cringe a little when I see a kid talking about feeling nostalgic and wanting to "go retro", when they're talking about GBA or GameCube or something. These kids make us feel old, especially when those games feel like they came out just yesterday, but when you really sit down and think about it, I don't think you can suggest that discussing GBA is on par with discussing 3DS.

[Satoshi_Matrix]

I personally think that like the heading in this forum suggests, anything prior to Y2K is now retro. As for GameCube/PS2/Xbox/GBA, they aren't modern, but they also aren't quite retro yet either. I'd consider them in the transitional phase that PS1/N64/Dreamcast was for a number of years. I think systems need to be at least two generations old to be considered retro.

As I recall, there was a rather interesting discussion on the longest gaming podcast ever, Retro Gaming Roundup. The hosts are all in their late 30's/early 40's, so they covet the Atari 2600 and gaming mostly prior to the crash and basically think everything after that is modern. The one host Scott even goes as far to say that he considers the last retro system to be the Sega Genesis! He's obviously insane, but its a good discussion worth tracking down.

[Kid Ice]

But... then that would place discussions about games that date back as far as the late '80s into "modern" gaming. o_O Unless you're exclusively counting systems that ONLY used CDs, rather than systems that expanded into CDs with peripherals.

I actually meant when disc-based systems became the norm, let's say 1995ish. So you would have let's say VCS and earlier through Genesis and SNES, with 3DO, Sega CD, TGFX CD kinda stuck in there in classic gaming, and modern gaming would be PlayStation forward (actually make that Saturn forward...you know what I mean, that generation).

I agree with you that the forums were separated to move out discussion of brand new games away from threads about the best Imagic games, where to get a cuttle cart, etc. I just don't know if something like say, the GameCube (I'm not using Dreamcast as an example because that was on the fence to begin with), is ridiculously irrelevant to modern gaming.

In other words, the thread is looking for the solution to a problem that's not a problem. Try again in 5-10 years.

[kafa111]

i decide whats classic by how much people i know talk about it. My friends talk about playstation plenty, same with gamecube. But it is rare for them to mention the dreamcast so thats where i draw the classic line ^_^

[FxMercenary]

A generation becomes a classic gaming generation when the games they enjoy are not considered "Noob Fanboyism" by the generation before them.

The End.

[Nz17]

People, people, I think the designation on these forums is clear. But for those of us who cannot see what I mean, I shall explain:

Classic Gaming goes from the beginning of computer games to the end of the 1990's. Now while we could count early computer game experiments and such, this place is console-centric and thus we count the Magnavox Odyssey as the original game console and the start of this section. That's 1972 through 1999, a time period of 28 years.

Ergo, the Modern Gaming section goes from 2000 through 2027. When 2028 gets here we'll open a new forum section. :D

[StealthLurker]

A generation becomes a classic gaming generation when the games they enjoy are not considered "Noob Fanboyism" by the generation before them.

The End.


Gotta wait for all the OG "classic" fans to die off, then the next generation can claim the classic throne. Everything before that will be considered pre-historic.


.

[Zing]

The day the PS2 becomes "classic" is the day I stop visiting these forums. The PS2 will never be "classic". It is from a different era of game design and ideology, although just barely. "Classic" isn't just about hardware specs, or console age.

[mobiusclimber]

I understand the division of forums on this board, but I can't say I totally agree with it, and if there was more activity I'd be all for splitting into three categories: Classic (everything pre-Saturn), Modern (Saturn up to PS2), Current.

My division between classic and modern is "when did 3D games become the norm?" To me, 3D killed off a lot of the classic genres or the way those genres were played (platforming, for instance).

In a way, I think the modern games are really their own division and a seperate beast if we go by style. The current gen of games has a totally different feel and mindset. You can see it in the way developers have dug their feet in and refused to release turn-based RPGs, opting to have real time this and action trigger that instead. The closest to old school RPGs you can get are all on handhelds. Part of the reason is the increased value placed on "realism" in gaming. It's a big reason why there are so many first person shooters, and so many of them look the same. Everything is action-oriented and developers seem to be trying their hardest to get away from breaking up the action with narratives (whether that means all the dialogue plays on your headset while you're doing other stuff, or you get journal entries that you can decide whether to read or not, or whatever, the days of sitting around watching non-interactive cutscenes are slowly going the way of sprites in games).

[marumari]

Especially when it comes to the PS2/Gamecube/Xbox era -- somewhat less so with the DC/PS1/N64 -- I'm wondering if they will *ever* be considered classic games and classic game systems, and will instead be considered kind of a lost era of gaming. Developers were still struggling to get a handle on 3D graphics and gameplay, and it shows. Most of those 3D games have been well eclipsed in every category by the current generation of systems. The PS2 may well escape that fate due to the incredibly wide game library it had, but the other two? I dunno. I except that we'll see tepid demand for games from that generation more-or-less in perpetuity.

On the other hand, there are plenty of 2D games from the previous generations that still hold up in both graphics and gameplay today. Developers really had that stuff figured out. If the those games and game systems fade, it's going to be over a very long time period. I think that's what makes a game generation a classic -- holding up over time and still being considered *great*.

Looking ahead, I'm even more concerned about games from *this* generation ever being considered classics as well, especially since for a lot of those PS3/360 games, they're doing to lose a large amount of their gameplay (and bug fixes) when the networks behind them shut down. I can still sit down with a friend and play River City Ransom or Toejam & Earl, but any of those PSN/XBL-only multiplayer games are going to be completely useless. And that's not even thinking about all those games that had large amounts of their content locked up in DLC that will one day be completely unavailable.