I never talked specifically about that. I simply said that it's hard to believe that a system reached classic status not very long after an entire revision of it was released. Any mention of sales data was talking about the platform as a whole and it's difficult to see the relevance of the composition of those sales. That they were brand new SuperNes consoles is all that matters.Originally Posted by Andreas
Last edited by Leo_A; 05-14-2014 at 08:45 AM.
To me classic games should be including everything up until the PS1, anything after that like the N64 should be considered modern. At most, the N64 can be considered classic. The term "modern" doesn't mean the same thing as "current".
Just look at comic books. The Modern Age is everything from the mid 80's until present day. Stuff doesn't get moved over or reclassified just because something newer comes out.
I don't know what anyone is talking about. I haven't seen a PS2 game in a Walmart, Target, or GameStop since at least Spring of this year, when GameStop finally phased it out. There is one rack for new DualShock 2 controllers at Walmart, but other than that there are no accessories or games anywhere.
Obviously it's extremely late in the system's commercial lifespan (Which unequivocally is still going in some regions if official releases are still happening). So there is going to be a lot of variance here unlike say 2007 or so when you could fairly state that any store that stocks new videogame product would have new Playstation 2 consoles, new accessories, new software, and new releases.
But the very fact that there's something still there, even if it's limited, points to the fact that this system lasted until very recently as a mainstream console. And at least to me, that very fact is helping leave me neutral where this debate is concerned since I think it fits a bit in both categories. I don't understand those that think there's some rule written in stone here or why the rush.
Some seem so desperate to want to label this as classic that one wonders just what they think is a qualification of a system as modern is. For at least a few here such as the claim that the Super Nintendo magically entered classic status in 1999, the fact that a platform can be making hundreds of millions of dollars, selling millions of systems, many millions more in software and accessories, and is still seeing programming and releases apparently doesn't matter in this kind of a debate.
Last edited by Leo_A; 10-28-2013 at 10:56 PM.
Last time I was in the United States they had them at two games stops I frequent, and a super walmart. At walmart they were next to the red PS3 classic games. Here in Japan they still are a driving force like the PSP. If the weather clears up I will go to Yamada and take some pictures . The point is they are still a factor in the market, maybe in a year or so their market share will shrink down to that of retro clone machines.
Hate to tell you this, but what constitute the comic 'modern age' is just as heavily debated. The 'modern age' certainly doesn't include the 80s and 90s any more. That's firmly in the 'Dark Age' of comics. From Watchmen to... I'd say the launch of Ultimate Marvel and the popularization of super-hero movies.
The term 'Modern age' is a sliding term any way. It encompasses what is presently modern. More then likely the current comic generation will be known as 'the digital age' once time moves on and new aspects of the industry take over.
New Comics for the Week of 10-03-12
I like how you snip what you want to target out of a thread and take it out of context, you missed quoting the part I mentioned earlier, you know, the part about GTA 3 and Mortal Kombat and how home office keeps sending us those games...
way to go!
so have at it right back, TLDR quoted what I saw, typed what I thought.
I'm sorry I upset you, but I don't see how that changes anything one way or another. If anything, it supports what I was saying.
But all I was directly responding to you about was what I quoted. What you took offense to not being included doesn't change what you said or my response to it. And I don't even know who TLDR is. It doesn't correspond with any names in here since that post of yours and I seem to have been the only one that quoted anything from that post.
Last edited by Leo_A; 10-30-2013 at 11:19 AM.
Nobody is ever going to convince me that the PS2 is not a "classic console". Most computer hardware from 2000 gets slapped with the label "legacy" and isn't used anymore. Stop trying to use arbitrary arguments like game releases to justify it. Just because you can still buy 3.5" floppy disk USB readers doesn't mean floppy disks are modern technology.
If most computers produced today came equipped with it, I'd sure as heck argue for it being an element that constitutes a modern computer.
If we're going to suddenly start to bring in computer standards here, not only are the main two consoles presently on the marketplace not modern, they're absolutely archaic at 7-8 years of age. And that simply just doesn't wash with me that they're anything but a modern game console.
At the rate some of you folks are going, if the Xbox One and Playstation 4 enjoy much longer lifespans than this generation did before intended successors are released, you'll be calling for it to be moved over to classic gaming before successors are ever even announced if this site somehow manages to still exist by then.
If we're going to bring up computers, does anyone actually consider computer hardware from the year 2000 to be classic? Or is it just old?
When it comes to PC gaming, what differentiates 'classic' and it's cut offs are a little bit different. It's not really about hardware, but technique. The current 'modern' generation is largely defined by the proliferation of HD graphics.
There are a lot of games I would consider classic that came out around the year 2000. The year 2000 was right in the middle of the early days of 3D and online multiplayer gaming. Unreal Tournament, Elder Scrolls Marrowind, Everquest, Deus Ex, Counter Strike, etc... Etc... Definitely a easily defined era the 2000s, with many a classic game. 1998 (launch of Half Life) to 2008 (launch of Crysis, maybe) would be a good gaming epoch. This period of course followed the Shareware Era of gaming which ID Software (and Apogee) kicked off around 1990 with Commander Keen, and which ended just after Quake 2.
Last edited by The Adventurer; 11-02-2013 at 12:50 AM.
New Comics for the Week of 10-03-12
Yea classic pc games to me would be dude scrolling duke nukem, myst, basically allot of dos stuff and Apple II stuff and the like. retro would be mechwarrior, duke nukem 3d etc etc etc.
might even consider quack 3 and unreal/ unreal tournament retro
It's two gens behind ffs....
This is actually the worst argument you could have possibly posted. This proves what I'm saying. What you just said is like saying "If GameStop still stocked NES games, I'd sure as heck argue that it constitutes a modern console". My whole point is that they don't. How did you miss that?
Just in case you never sat down and thought about it: consoles are computers. I think you totally missed the point of my analogy because I didn't use menial comparisons like graphics chips and processors which we still have not used to their full potential until very very recently (think The Last Of Us, Grand Theft Auto 5).If we're going to suddenly start to bring in computer standards here, not only are the main two consoles presently on the marketplace not modern, they're absolutely archaic at 7-8 years of age. And that simply just doesn't wash with me that they're anything but a modern game console.
This is a slippery slope argument and I think you ought to know enough about those for me to sufficiently say that I don't really need to respond to this. Saying that just because I'm a "classic PS2" advocate means I am going to call for the PS4/Xbone's re-classification later down the line is ridiculous.At the rate some of you folks are going, if the Xbox One and Playstation 4 enjoy much longer lifespans than this generation did before intended successors are released, you'll be calling for it to be moved over to classic gaming before successors are ever even announced if this site somehow manages to still exist by then.
If 3.5" drives were extremely common on a PC in 2013, it's because it's widely being used by users worldwide. So it of course would be an element that constitutes a modern PC just like how a CRT in 2000 that just rolled off Sony's production line could be a modern tv back in 2000 despite essentially being over half century old technology at the time. That's what I said to you, but of course they aren't common and they're not being used by the average individual so they're not.
How did you miss that point? When the PS2 is just disappearing, the system hasn't been out of production very long, it still has a lot of product stocked out there at mainstream retailers and is being restocked in some instances, was Sony's last generation console when the thread was started, is still seeing new product manufactured for it (And not by niche firms catering to a small number of classic gamers), appears to be still played by millions of people, and is still seeing new official releases from major publishers, it's at the very least a very debatable point where to classify it where this completely ambiguous standard is concerned.
And that's all I ever said and I think that's perfectly fair even if every last person in this thread disagrees with me (And it sure seems like it). And it's the last I'm going to say on that. It's an extremely simple statement that should have never required a dozen posts trying to explain it further. It's purely 100% subjective if a system is classic or modern and I merely offered my opinion that it could easily swing either way and was even willing to debate and explain why I thought that.
Last edited by Leo_A; 07-02-2014 at 06:09 AM.
Well one thing's for certain. The PS2 is older than the Gamecube and Xbox, but the Gamecube and Xbox will be considered classic before the PS2 is.
[quote name='Shidou Mariya' date='Nov 17 2010, 10:05 PM' post='4889940']
I'm a collector, but only to a certain extent.
Not as extreme as Rickstilwell though.[/quote]
Agree strongly.
I'm with Leo. Ps2 to me is a modern system because the bulk of the games for it are just low-res versions of today's cutting-edge console games with shitty camera controls. It's similar in concept to how snes games are just nes games with a higher color palette and wavetable sounds. Gaming hasn't really changed all that much since the ps2 was king, if you really think about it, other than distribution methods. No new genres really came about since then, just refinement of the old ones.
That's just my opinion, though. It's irrelevant to whether or not ps2 goes tothe classic gaming section. I'm fine with that. It's just such an arbitrary designation, that's all.
Last edited by Graham Mitchell; 11-04-2013 at 08:40 PM.
This makes the most sense to me. Classic or not, I wouldn't fancy a moderator's task of trawling through all the PS2 threads in Modern Gaming to move them into Classic. Even if you didn't move them but just changed the classification, you'd have new PS2 threads in Classic while the old ones sat in Modern. Makes sense to just leave the cut-off as is - from a forum point of a view at least. Away from the forum, I suppose it's now a classic format, but not based on any particular measurement.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
