How do you define "Classic Gaming"?

[digitalpress]

Last weekend I had a reporter over to the house to talk about vintage gaming, get a look at what a game collection looks like, and discuss various aspects of both classic gaming and collecting.

He asked a number of interestnig questions that I have my own opinion on, that I told him would vary depending on who he asked.

One of those questions was "what is a classic game?".

Now we've had conversations like this before, there are several schools of thought that I described to him:

1. The classic gaming era ended when the market crashed in 1984.
2. Classic gaming includes anything that is 10 (or x number of) years old or more.
3. Classic gaming includes anything that is no longer being sold retail.
4. Classic gaming is everything... it's about games that are or will be timeless, regardless of how old they are right now.

I explained my point of view (#4) in more detail. There is a steep curve that is very high in the 70's and 80's, declines sharply in the 90's, and is very low since 2000. That curve represents the number of games I would call "classic".

What do you think?

[Sniderman]

Hmmm...interesting question. I initially though of anything released before the crash of '84.

But then it dawned on me that the NES - which I *do* consider a classic system - came out post-crash. So I believ my gut tells me "Anything from the NES and earlier."

[omnedon]

I think it's number 4.

It doesn't have to be old to be classic! LOL

...but it often is

[Ed Oscuro]

I think it's number 4.

It doesn't have to be old to be classic! LOL

...but it often is

Well said :)

Games haven't gotten worse than they used to be...but it's easy for titles to fall through the cracks into obscurity these days. I think that in upcoming years we won't be talking about many PS2 games even if they can be found cheaply...something about the old games (maybe that they're easier to comprehend, who knows?) makes them seem more "classic."

[hydr0x]

classic = everything can be classic but not every old game is ;)
retro = everything not current-gen

[Keir]

I see classic and vintage gaming as 2 different things. Vintage games basically include 8-bit and earlier systems. A classic game is anything that retains the "feel" of those vintage games in its gameplay and/or graphics, etc. Obviously classic games are still released today, but they become less common as time goes by. I don't think it has any connection to the quality of a game either. A game can be classic and still suck.

[Oobgarm]

I think that 'classic' is whatever seems nostalgic to you as an individual. Everyone has different things that trigger the nostalgia emotion for them.

A more definite answer: anything 8 bit and prior, or everything covered in the DP7 guide.

[digitalpress]

I see classic and vintage gaming as 2 different things. Vintage games basically include 8-bit and earlier systems. A classic game is anything that retains the "feel" of those vintage games in its gameplay and/or graphics, etc. Obviously classic games are still released today, but they become less common as time goes by.

I agree, in fact this could be an extension of rule #4 :)

Not sure I understand the separation of vintage and classic though. Why separate them?


I don't think it has any connection to the quality of a game either. A game can be classic and still suck.

I agree again, though consider this.

I would consider any RCA Studio II game "classic", even though I think every game on the console sucks.

I would only consider the very best of PlayStation games "classic".

I think the suck factor evaporates over time, so perhaps I have a little of the "age matters" mentality in my personal theory after all.

[YoshiM]

Hmmmm. Interesting thoughts.

I see something as "classic" when it makes a milestone or shines like a beacon amongst the other like titles out there. Typically one can't really see something as "classic" until some time has passed so you can make comparisons with newer games. However many people lump "old" with "classic" and that just ain't so. I agree with Keir about "vintage". There are a LOT of vintage games but they aren't classic.

[rolenta]

My definition will be in an upcoming issue of Manci Games!

[tynstar]

I agree with #4 but all games NES and older are classics. Just some of them are classic crap.

[Keir]

I see classic and vintage gaming as 2 different things. Vintage games basically include 8-bit and earlier systems. A classic game is anything that retains the "feel" of those vintage games in its gameplay and/or graphics, etc. Obviously classic games are still released today, but they become less common as time goes by.

I agree, in fact this could be an extension of rule #4 :)

Not sure I understand the separation of vintage and classic though. Why separate them?
What I was trying to say is that vintage is a subset of classic.

[Mayhem]

I follow #4 and hydr0x's definition. There's a similar argument going on over on the AtariAge boards funnily enough. "Classic" to me means something which is or will be fondly remember now or in the future as not only a great game, but one people want to keep playing and have kept playing. It doesn't matter how old it is, be it Defender, Wizball, Goldeneye or Halo. Classic <> retro in my book. Retro IS a part definition of something old, or from previous generations (which by that token would mean PS1 still!). Of course we have our own take on it. Retro in my eyes is something from at least 2 generations ago, so currently that would go up to SNES and Megadrive (Genesis).

[IntvGene]

Classic is indeed a word that gets overused and misused alot, probably by everyone (me included). Here's what one of the online dictionary (M-W) had... I've edited a bit to get rid of the non-essential parts of the definition:

1 a : serving as a standard of excellence : of recognized value b : traditional, enduring

2 : of or relating to the ancient Greeks and Romans or their culture

3 a : historically memorable b : noted because of special literary or historical associations

4 a : authentic, authoritative b : typical

5 capitalized : of or relating to the period of highest development of Mesoamerican and especially Mayan culture about A.D. 300-900


Now, I agree first off with Oobgarm that classic is different for everyone.

I see important parts of those above definitions to me that apply to "classic games"... games that are enduring, pass a standard of excellence, relate to a certain time or culture (often involving the highest development of that culture.. ahem.. 80's), historically memorable or unique.

My definition includes all of these, and I sort of cringe whenever I hear "it doesn't have to be old to be classic". I think that a time period definitely has to pass so that it can be judged in history, along with the consoles and games of the time, and those that preceeded it. I think that it's tough to do that until, say the system is dead for a bit.

[RetroYoungen]

I'd also go with #4. There definately are modern day classics, like GTA III, Ikaruga, Prince of Persia: SoT, and even going back a short ways to an era many would refer to as neo-classic, like Super Mario World, Final Fantasy II and III, and Uniracers.

It doesn't have to be old to be classic! :-P

[Kid Ice]

I hold firmly to definition #1. For me, the Colecovision was the last classic console (OK maybe the Vectrex) and Robotron was the last classic arcade game.

In my mind, the NES and arcade games like Gauntlet and Spy Hunter started a definitive new era in gaming that I would not regard as "classic".

Part of this is me showing my age. I remember the crash and how it appeared that videogames were "over". It seemed at the time that they would never be back. So that whole pre-crash era is like a closed book to me, and definitively classic.

[le geek]

I think a classic game has to either be:

A) X amount of years old. So for example all Saturn games, Early Playstation Games, probably not Dreamcast games (yet!). This has to do with games that feel different than the current generation, for example Jumping Flash and Tomb Raider were still early forays into how to do 3-D games and play differently than games made today. I guess you could argue that the Resident Evil series is somewhat classic, since they haven't updated the controls!

B) made in a classic style. At this point any 2-D game fits the bill. Before that any games with single screens and arcade like goals (vs. the Super Mario mold of go to the right and fight the "Boss")

Cheers,
Ben

[Ed Oscuro]

I would consider any RCA Studio II game "classic", even though I think every game on the console sucks.

This is more a difference on opinion regarding the English language. I like to say that the common usage of a word defines the language, not the other way around. As we see various old movies referred to as "classics," but others evade this description, it's safe to assume that some old movies aren't considered classics. I'm certainly willing to do the same for some stuff like that RCA system...it has an unimpressive game library and just doesn't meet the common definition of the word "classic."

I agree with the Retrogaming Roundtable credo of "It doesn't have to be old to be classic!"

[LazingBlazers]

Classic to me is something that is long out of production and that holds a high sentimental value to you.

When you think of the game/system/whathaveyou in question, it is instantly synonomous with the word classic.

Otherwise I agree with #4, but after something has been played and then put back on the shelf for a period of time. Eventually you'll come back to it because it really is a classic. In the past it was just a great game.

[Sph1nx]

classic = everything can be classic but not every old game is ;)
retro = everything not current-gen

Never though it it like that... but it's a good description. I've usually thought of anything not current gen as classic... but I guess retro is a better description. Classic is esentially "timeless".

[Griking]

I think it needs to be clarified as to whether we're defining the games age as being classic or it's quality. Surely there's some great games on the PS1 or N64 but I don't consider them classics yet. I personally consider a classic era game as a game NES or before. But at the same time I'd be happier with a era based grading system like the ones comic books use. Pre-NES would be Platinum era, NES to SNES may be Golden Era, and so on and so on.

[hu6800]

Last weekend I had a reporter over to the house to talk about vintage gaming, get a look at what a game collection looks like, and discuss various aspects of both classic gaming and collecting.

He asked a number of interestnig questions that I have my own opinion on, that I told him would vary depending on who he asked.

One of those questions was "what is a classic game?".

Now we've had conversations like this before, there are several schools of thought that I described to him:

1. The classic gaming era ended when the market crashed in 1984.
2. Classic gaming includes anything that is 10 (or x number of) years old or more.
3. Classic gaming includes anything that is no longer being sold retail.
4. Classic gaming is everything... it's about games that are or will be timeless, regardless of how old they are right now.

I explained my point of view (#4) in more detail. There is a steep curve that is very high in the 70's and 80's, declines sharply in the 90's, and is very low since 2000. That curve represents the number of games I would call "classic".

What do you think?

Dude check this shit out...
I remember going to my grandmothers on weekends and how my
uncles had little game machines (a tank one i remember the most)
that ran on a bunch of D cell batteries.
When i was 8, (im 33 now)
I had one of those odessey systems, i traded a neighbor for his 2600
Ozzy concerts, Tour shirts and drying your own weed in the stove
i remember those days sitting around playing my foghat 8 tracks and playing
tandy's Fire Away and powerpigskin.
and walked my ass down to caldors to buy the famous "white cartridge" DK
One rainy day, i walked all the way to the mall and bought a brand new colleco vision (launch date) and started buying those carts up (had to shovel alot of snow in the winter to get the good carts) smurfs all night long.
Then the 5200 came out, miner 2049er and shit all the way...
but what a nice port of pac man...... i peed alittle.

oh im sorry , classic gaming?
its over....... its now 2004 and newer systems are out.
i try not to stay in the past , even with video games.
oldest stuff i collect is TG16

I just mailed you a package with something really old in it Joe...
i figure out of everybody else here, you would dig it the most (i love surprising people lol) you prolly already have one, but if you dont,
give it a good home.

[Sotenga]

Definition #4 is what I perceive classic gaming to be... I mean, Grand Theft Atuo: Vice City is still pretty fresh, and it's already gone down in VG history as a classic. Even not very well-known games can be considered classics, like Run Saber and Caliber 50. It's all a matter of perspective.

[Sanriostar]

Back when I tried to keep up a RGVC FAQ, I actually tried to answer this, and I got this far:

It's a matter of naming, namley 'Classic' and classic

'Classic' is pre-crash, and refers to the year.
classic is a statment of quality, no matter how old or new a game is, you can paly it again and again, and never get old.

So a game can be "Classic' and classic, like Robotron and Tempest
'Classic', but not classic like say, SSSSSSnnnnnake or Myticon games
classic but not 'Classic', like SMB, Worms, SF2, et.al.
and neither of the two, and there's enough in this pile to name your own.

/Forrest
And That's All I got to say about that
\Forrest

[Sanriostar]

Back when I tried to keep up a RGVC FAQ, I actually tried to answer this, and I got this far:

It's a matter of naming, namley 'Classic' and classic

'Classic' is pre-crash, and refers to the year.
classic is a statment of quality, no matter how old or new a game is, you can play it again and again, and never get old.

So a game can be "Classic' and classic, like Robotron and Tempest
'Classic', but not classic like say, SSSSSSnnnnnake or Myticon games
classic but not 'Classic', like SMB, Worms, SF2, et.al.
and neither of the two, and there's enough in this pile to name your own.

/Forrest
And That's All I got to say about that
\Forrest

[Sanriostar]

Aw crap, can a Mod kindly delete the fist post, and this one? I cant edit my post for some reason... :embarrassed:

[lendelin]

Keir to the nth power wrote:
I see classic and vintage gaming as 2 different things. Vintage games basically include 8-bit and earlier systems. A classic game is anything that retains the "feel" of those vintage games in its gameplay and/or graphics, etc. Obviously classic games are still released today, but they become less common as time goes by.

DigitalPress wrote:
I agree, in fact this could be an extension of rule #4

Not sure I understand the separation of vintage and classic though. Why separate them?


I picked this quote because it is representative of the basic serious flaw of the entire discussion, and the terminology shows it. In order to define the term "classic", specific games are put together with a certain era of viodeogames, there is no distinction between specific games and a specific type of gameplay ("gaming?") found in a specific era of games. Both contradict each other UNLESS you define classic gaming (game content, gameplay, hardware requirements?) and then discuss in a futile way which "post-classic" games capture the spirit of the declared "classic" gaming. "Virtua Tennis" easily qualifies as a very sophisticated "Pong", "Gran Turismo 3" is certainly a refined "Pole Position", but GTA3, "Goldeneye 007" , and "Street Fighter 2" would probably not qualify. The term "classic gaming" is only a short step away from associating it with a specific era of gaming. In short: rule number 4 and rule number 1 cannot be combined.

What's a classic game? A game which sets new excellent standards and/or influences future game development. That's it. The term classic should be reserved in this minimalistic and broad definition for specific (!) games of all eras of gaming.

To declare and define certain times as "classic" was done over and over again in literature, sculpture, paintings, philosophy, and "culture" in general; in the western world it was mostly ancient Greece and Rome. There are a lots of problems associated with it, but here are my two biggest ones:

1) The connotation of a declared "classic" era is necessarily associated with the highest achievement and development of a certain field; everything else which follows can maybe match this classic era, but it can never top it. Almost everything "post-classic" is second class. The declared "classic" era acts then as a big obstacle for innovation and development.

2) In order to capture the "spirit" of a dominant and generally agreed classic era, wooden, uninspired copies of specific excellent games of this era would be developed. There will be an attempt to achieve and follow certain rules of gameplay, game content, appearance and the elusive quality of "feel" of the (in this way necessarily defined) "classic" games which gives little room for innovation. Again, a "classic" era of gaming acts as a big obstacle for game development.

Some might say we don't have to develop the label "classic" in such a restrictive way as dictatorial examples, it still gives room for innovation. It won't work. If you declare a certain type of gaming as "classic" it becomes necessarily the role model. If "simplicity which results in rich gameplay" is the decisive factor of classic gaming, Pong-like games would dominate, but RPGs wouldn't be first class. Moreover, GO would be a classic game, but certainly not chess.

Some might say we just declare the origins, the beginnings of videogames as "classic" in a neutral way, as a chronoligical label, not associated with any excellence of gameplay. It doesn't make sense. The term classic has another connotation, you can't evade to go into definitions of gameplay, and moreover, when should the "beginnings" start and end? With the products of Ralph Baer, the first Atari, the Atari 7800, the NES, the Genesis, the Dreamcast?

Does it really make sense to declare everything pre-NES as classic, and with the NES begins the "neo-classic" period as some have suggested? Do we experience right now the "neo-neo-classic" era of gaming, and in 2005 or 2006 might start the "neo-neo-neo-classic" era? Does GTA3 capture the "essential" gameplay elements of classic gaming, just modified, gradually developed as a neo-neo-classic game?

Instead of trying to label a certain era as "classic," we should label specific fantastic games of all times as "classic". Exceptional, classic games are interactive products which allows you to identify with the content through various ways of gameplay and atmosphere. That goes for a Galaga, Final Fantasy X, Super Metroid, Joust, Zelda, and Gran Turismo 3. Defining what makes an exceptional, classic game makes more sense than declaring a specific era of gaming as classic.

[sabre2922]

CLASSIC= anything before the 32 to 64-bit era
VINTAGE=anything before the nintendo 8-bit era as in before '84 or the crash of '83

[Balloon Fight]

classic = everything can be classic but not every old game is ;)
retro = everything not current-gen

Agreed.

I think a classic is a game that never wears out, and you can keep going back to for just "one" more game.

[Kejoriv]

CLASSIC= anything before the 32 to 64-bit era
VINTAGE=anything before the nintendo 8-bit era as in before '84 or the crash of '83

I agree

[lendelin]

Well, all of you who opt for a specific gaming era to be called classic, what's the justification?

What sets the classic gaming era apart from from the non-classic eras? No matter which seperation line you draw (pre-NES, pre-32 bit, etc.) you have to justify it and define it...a statement isn't enough.

I can't really identify gaming elements of a certain era which is significantly different from the others. The evolution of games are gradual, year by year, decade by decade, step-by-step. We are talking about mere three decades, not a thousand years. ...and even in the latter case, it was very difficult and and arbitrary to call an era "classic."

So far I read only statements, no definitions or identification of specific gaming characteristics.

[Keir]

OK, here are 2 traits I associate with classic gaming and are rarely if ever found in modern games:
2D graphics
"easy to learn, difficult to master"

[lendelin]

OK, here are 2 traits I associate with classic gaming and are rarely if ever found in modern games:
2D graphics
"easy to learn, difficult to master"

That doesn't say a lot.

Why should 2D-games be regarded as "classic'?

Why should the old "easy to learn, difficult to master" (the dream of every game developer) be a restricted dominant characteristic to a certain era? Does simple rules mean richness of gameplay? If that's a criteria for classic games, the first Final Fantasy and Dragon Warrior (and every 8bit RPG) are certainly not classics although they fall according to you in the "classic" pre-32-bit era.

[lendelin]

...although they fall according to you in the "classic" pre-32-bit era.

Correction of my post: ...although they fall according to you in the "classic" pre-16-bit era.

(PS: according to you "vintage" games include 8bit games, and "classic" games capture their feel and gameplay....which means that 8bit vintage games and their predecessors ARE "classic" games.)

[Neonsolid]

Gone.

[Aswald]

This is certainly one question in which age figures in.

I would say the pre-1984 crash era. Especially as most genres were created during this time.

[4ever2600]

No, IMO, CLASSIC is pre-nintendo (1984 and prior) ... RETRO is Nintendo era / Sega era, upto and including the 16 bits... 32 bit PSX SATURN ETC. is just YESTERYEAR! That's the way I see it anyhow... - D

[legov8]

For me it is this: If it's not in the sotres anymore, it's classic.