N64 and DC, still a few years from Retro

[Anthony1]

To me, I can't really consider the Nintendo 64 and the Dreamcast retro systems.


I know, I know. The only "REAL" retro systems are pre-NES, but I actually consider anything early PS1 and before to be Retro. I know they aren't truly "retro", but they are pretty damn old as far as I'm concerned.


But the Dreamcast, and even the Nintendo 64, just don't seem very old to me, to consider to be classic yet, or retro. They are kindof in a "no man's land" as far as I'm concerned. Like they are still in purgatory and haven't reached video game heaven.

Even though the PS1 still has games released for it, and is actually more viable then the Dreamcast and N64 in the retail channel, It did come out in September of 1995. 8 years in video game time, is a long time! Games like the original Ridge Racer and Jumping Flash and Loaded and Legacy of Kain, seem old school to me.

What are your guys feelings on this...?

[Cmosfm]

If you go to Blockbuster Videos game section and look at the shelf liner where the N64 & PS1 games are it says "retro" on it. Ive always found this to be shitty, becuase these are no where near retro! Hell, the woman I talked to didnt even know there was an NES, she was like "yeah, we take in all games but the Super Nintendo" I said "how about NES?", she said "whats that?" LMAO

Retro in a casual gamers sense maybe, but retro in a collectors point of view, thats just blasphemy

[Anthony1]

If you go to Blockbuster Videos game section and look at the shelf liner where the N64 & PS1 games are it says "retro" on it. Ive always found this to be shitty, becuase these are no where near retro! Hell, the woman I talked to didnt even know there was an NES, she was like "yeah, we take in all games but the Super Nintendo" I said "how about NES?", she said "whats that?" LMAO

Retro in a casual gamers sense maybe, but retro in a collectors point of view, thats just blasphemy


So, out of curiosity, what is the newest video game system, that you consider to be "retro"?

[Gunstarhero]

Anything on a Cartridge is Retro to me. If only because simply having the games on CART creates a nostalgic effect, as these aren't produced anymore(except NEO GEO). The N64 is going to prove to be the real winner, in the future, for game collectors because the quality of the games was better, and the machine is holding up well, and I've seen lots of interest in it lately. Can't say that about the PS1.

Conversely, I would not be able to ever accept the term classic for anything on a disc(that didn't require a cart base unit to operate). Thus, if classifications are made, I would have a problem with N64, PS1 and DC being bunched up in the same category, as really, the N64 is alot different and acts more like a classic machine than the other two simply because it uses Carts. Further on down the road, say another 25 years, the clear dividing line for what is classic will most likely be the split that happened when CD's became the storage medium of choice, thus I think you'll see the N64 known as the last classic(cart) designed machine.

[evilmess]

i think the word "retro" in general is to loose of a term when it's used to decribe an old video game or system.

It might work for pre NES games and consoles but that's as far as I'd be willing to accept it as a classification for old systems.

Classic? Maybe for the 8 bit and 16 bit generation
Vintage? Whatevuh!!

We as a group need to better classify these levels of gaming for ourselves and others. Perhaps this could even be added to the DP Collectors guide once a terminology for the various time frames have been established.

[Ernster]

If you go to Blockbuster Videos game section and look at the shelf liner where the N64 & PS1 games are it says "retro" on it. Ive always found this to be shitty, becuase these are no where near retro! Hell, the woman I talked to didnt even know there was an NES, she was like "yeah, we take in all games but the Super Nintendo" I said "how about NES?", she said "whats that?" LMAO

Retro in a casual gamers sense maybe, but retro in a collectors point of view, thats just blasphemy

Of course she wouldnt know what a NES is. If you said Original Nintendo than maybe she would of :roll: :)

[petewhitley]

I don't know, I personally consider anything that isn't currently being commercially developed for "retro." The DC and N64 might lack a certain charm in that their games are remarkably similar to what we're playing on this generation of consoles, but I'm throwing them in under the "retro" category because for all intents and purposes they're extinct.

[Astro Lad]

On a related note:

3D is going to make it a LOT harder for most games of the last few gens to get the admiration "retro" games do now. Anyone can still go back and play Ms. Pac Man, Bomberman, Zelda, almost any and all "good" games of the 2d-era and have honest, unreserved, fun playing them. On the other hand, going back to play man PSX games, with their horrid color palettes and vomit-inducing textures is often much less satisfying. The games aren't "charming" in any way; all but the absolutely most brilliant ones are just plain ugly. On a different level, this has happened because, in the move from 2d to 3d mostly, graphics in games have gone from being symbols (referring to a thing or to nothing specific at all) to being representations (in many cases, of the real world). We can always appreciate symbols, but with representations we tend to favor those that do a better job of, well, representing, and this is typically achieved through better technology, so the pleasure of playing older 3d games is accordingly reduced for many.

Sure there are a select few games that will stand the test of time, and everyone's got their own personal favs that they'll play regardless, but I really think "retro" for 3d games will very rarely have the connotation it does for 2d games now.

Not that I'm biased against 3d games in any way seeing as how I own every system from the DC on, but that's just the way I see it.

[§ Gideon §]

One question: Is "retro" short for "retrospective"? If so, by definition, every game that has been released is "retro".

I think most of you are missing where the relevance lies. For those of us who experienced it, there was a definite change as video games became a mainstream medium; this is where the real boundary lies, although it's not entirely distinct.

As far as retro goes, sure--it's whatever you want it to be.

[Pantechnicon]

Great points on all sides from everybody. Given my screen name, I feel obligated to weigh in, of course...




I actually consider anything early PS1 and before to be Retro. I know they aren't truly "retro", but they are pretty damn old as far as I'm concerned...

Even though the PS1 still has games released for it, and is actually more viable then the Dreamcast and N64 in the retail channel, It did come out in September of 1995. 8 years in video game time, is a long time! Games like the original Ridge Racer and Jumping Flash and Loaded and Legacy of Kain, seem old school to me.

Well, I think you may have answered your own question here. On one hand the PSX is, yes, nearing nine years of age. But on the other hand games are still being commercially produced ("commercially viable", I believe you said) for it. Does that make the PSX "retro"? I don't think so. Bear in mind that the venerable Atari 2600 had games commerically developed for it for an amazing fourteen years. But towards the end (1990) nobody thought of it as a "retro" system. Rather it was the Dear-Lord-why-are-they-still-making-games-for-this system. LOL

I think for something to be considered "retro" one should maybe consider if the span of, say, a single generation, or half a genertaion, for whom this thing was new has passed. By this reasoning, you're pre-NES stuff is definitely retro, sure. NES itself is just starting to come to be regarded along those lines. DC and N64? They're not retro...yet. They're merely discontinued. Get `em while you can, because in another decade they'll be commodities. But given that you can still buy a PS1 brand new (and games), I'd have to say no on the retro.


If you go to Blockbuster Videos game section and look at the shelf liner where the N64 & PS1 games are it says "retro" on it. Ive always found this to be shitty, becuase these are no where near retro! Hell, the woman I talked to didnt even know there was an NES, she was like "yeah, we take in all games but the Super Nintendo" I said "how about NES?", she said "whats that?" LMAO

You know, I remember Atari systems very well and still consider NES, in many ways, to be too complicated and flashy. And then you come along and tell me there's some vaccuum-head at the Blockbuster who has even no recollection of NES? (sigh) I turn 34 next month, and hearing this kind of thing does not help my anxieties about getting old one bit.


Anything on a Cartridge is Retro to me. If only because simply having the games on CART creates a nostalgic effect, as these aren't produced anymore(except NEO GEO). The N64 is going to prove to be the real winner, in the future, for game collectors because the quality of the games was better, and the machine is holding up well, and I've seen lots of interest in it lately. Can't say that about the PS1.

Conversely, I would not be able to ever accept the term classic for anything on a disc(that didn't require a cart base unit to operate). Thus, if classifications are made, I would have a problem with N64, PS1 and DC being bunched up in the same category, as really, the N64 is alot different and acts more like a classic machine than the other two simply because it uses Carts. Further on down the road, say another 25 years, the clear dividing line for what is classic will most likely be the split that happened when CD's became the storage medium of choice, thus I think you'll see the N64 known as the last classic(cart) designed machine.

This is an excellent point. I mused on this quite a bit after I got an N64 and almost started a thread about it; something along the lines of "end of an era". There is something decidedly "retro" about the idea of carts. It's a pleasing sensation, really...this idea of snapping in a cart, hearing a click and firing up the game. Even though I know that the storage medium is unimportant with respect to software, on some level using carts almost makes me feel less like I'm loading a program as I am changing the fundamental nature of the machine itself. This is more of an aesthetic sensation than anything, and N64 will sadly be the last machine to allow for hardware freaks like me to experience that feeling (no, handhelds don't count).

Anyway, my quick, eponymous criteria for "retro" system is: 1) The console is no longer commerically manufactured or sold. 2) The console no longer has commercial software development taking place. 3) Allow for a minimum of 15 years to elapse from the machine's commercial peak to the present. But those are just my guidelines. Make your own if you don't like them.

[Griking]

To me I consider Classic or Retro as meaning NES and earlier. SNES and Genesis are close but not quite there yet. Maybe after the next generation consoles are released. N64 and PSX are YEARS away IMHO.

It drives me crazy when magazines like Game Informer review "Classic" games and include N64 and PS1 games.

[Dobie]

On a different level, this has happened because, in the move from 2d to 3d mostly, graphics in games have gone from being symbols (referring to a thing or to nothing specific at all) to being representations (in many cases, of the real world). We can always appreciate symbols, but with representations we tend to favor those that do a better job of, well, representing, and this is typically achieved through better technology, so the pleasure of playing older 3d games is accordingly reduced for many.

Excellent point there. Nobody can accuse Atari's Adventure of being too representative. Still an enjoyable game. Going back and playing Cruisin' USA on the N64 (a once enjoyable game)--downright painful.

[petewhitley]

For those of us who experienced it, there was a definite change as video games became a mainstream medium; this is where the real boundary lies, although it's not entirely distinct.

I was around for the Atari 2600, and it seemed pretty mainstream at the time...

[Flack]

If you can tell what an object is supposed to be by its graphics, it's not retro. On SNES, a basketball looks like a basketball -- not retro. On Atari, a basketball looks like a cube. Retro.

Just kidding. Seriously though, it's hard to think of a console as "retro" that I didn't buy THAT long ago. The PSX? I bought mine in '96 I think and I still have the same one. Retro to me feels like something that was popular, went away, and came back. PSX hasn't ever "gone away". SNES/Genesis haven't really "come back". NES I could see as something that "went away" and "came" or is "coming" back (there are way too many quotation marks in that sentence, I "apologize".)