>>79 I would feel inclined to find some kind of strong distinguishing factor, like the way hardware worked, or the way game engines had to be structured, something that can tie together true retro games. Pre-64-bit processing? That would cut off between SNES and N64 The era of Atari Jaguar, PS1, so on.

>>80 It's gonna take a while for the seventh gen to be called retro, I wouldn't call Metal Gear Solid V or Halo 4 retro games.

The XBOX 360 is as old now as the SNES was when the 360 first released. Let that sink in.

They may be more than 15 years old but I would still not consider them retro. Maybe I could give leeway to the Wii as it was nothing more than a overclocked Gamecube (right down to the graphics) that happened to have motion controllers but for the PS3 and Xbox 360 it's a little more complicated. >today's controller button layouts, for lack of a better word, haven't changed too much from that gen besides having a upload button. Gyro in controllers has been a thing since PS3's Sixaxis (and you would be right to say that the layout of PS3 controllers is about the same as the PS2 and PS1's Dualshock right down to how you hold them) >they had new hardware to seperate them from their predecessors (and you would again be right to say that early PS3s had PS2 hardware to play the games, but it didn't live long as future revisions of the console eventually gutted PS2 hardware) I don't know if homebrew means anything for retro but the Wii isn't good at running PSX games the way PS3 emulates them flawlessly and to some extent PS2 games.

The Wii and it's awkward novelty control scheme are starting to feel more retro each day. Also consider its glassmorphism approach to UI which not a single device still uses nowadays, having more in common with the first iterations of the iPhone than with modern devices.

>>79 Retro is not just a time period, it refers to the aesthetic of a time period as well as products of a time period that typically fulfill the aesthetic part. 5th Gen consoles and OS's (Windows 98, making Deus Ex retro for example), retained the same audience and a multitude of aesthetic/gameplay trends from the 4th Gen. If you compare 5th Gen and 6th Gen games however, you could easily make more distinctions other than "2D to 3D." Multiple changes to older genres (FPS and beat-em-ups being the biggest), the near-extinction of other genres (2D run 'n gun, 2D action platformers such as Shinobi or Kagane), the precursors to mainstream online multiplayer services, among others.

It hasn't been mentioned but the Xbox 360 went through some revisions of its dashboard which muddies the water of retro. The first revision I would consider retro because it not only did not last long but as far as I know no modern day application has a similar design to it. It is funny that the Wii and PS3 UI hasn't changed too much when they launched.

>>106 The first one is still my favorite, the very last felt just like a desperate attempt to make an aging product marketable by imitating the newer one (xboner)

Retro is a relativistic term referring to a period of design, rather than hard and fast rules of chronology. That being said around the time games really ever get past sixth generation of consoles orthodoxy of design, which is potentially arguable for the current generation of gaming. There's a bit of a weird issue where design kinda stayed exactly there for over 2 decades

>>106 I loved the blades. MS's need to constantly redesign shit ruined that though.

I would say not until about 2025 that 7th gen would be "retro", mainly on account of it being an unusually long generation. >>105 >>113 >hurr durr muh retro feeling Fuck off with that cuckchan faggotry. This is the mentality of MY CHILDHOOD IS MORE IMPORTANT TO YOUR CHILDHOOD

>>131 This nigger gets it. I don't care about your feelings, time is the only true measurement tool when it comes to what is retro and what isn't.

>>88 Liar.

>>79 It's more about the feel of the game and the techniques used than the date of release. For me, if it's 2D, it's retro. Anything rendered in 3D? That's the new stuff that they just came out with a year or two ago.

I would say up to the 5th gen. Games from the PS2 and onwards look and play much more akin to modern vidya without the jewry, with most of the hardware limitations on gameplay gone out of the way. You could show them to kids or someone who doesn't even play videogames and they'd think they look pretty cool, and get into them somewhat easily. But PS1, SNES, Genesis, Game Boy Color and maybe even some Dreamcast games? If i showed them to most people more used to modern vidya, they'd probably think they aged horribly and that they look and play like barebones tech demos of latter 2000's vidya. I'd have a hard time selling them to anyone who didn't grow up with those consoles or who isn't very patient without a "it was good for it's time" mindset. The only exception would probably be the Nintendo DS, at least compared with the PSP. I also dunno where to draw the line with PC games.

>>165 Well that settles that then.

>>79 >>132 The Dreamcast should be retro in terms of the time and date it got released, for sure. All other 6th gen consoles and up, no dice.

>>79 The old /vr/ board defined retro based on what the current consoles and games were: >June 2013 (Creation): Retro gaming means consoles, computer games, arcade games (including pinball) and any other forms of video games on platforms launched in 1999 and earlier. Sixth generation and later consoles are not considered retro (including the Dreamcast) >November 2013: Retro gaming means consoles, computer games, arcade games (including pinball) and any other forms of video games on platforms launched in 1999 and earlier. With the release of the 8th generation of consoles, the Sega Dreamcast will now be considered "retro", though the remainder of the sixth generation (Xbox, PS2, GameCube) will not. >August 2020: With the coming release of the PlayStation 5 and the Xbox Series X, we think it's time to update /vr/'s definition of 'retro' to include the remainder of the Sixth Generation consoles: the classic Xbox, the PlayStation 2, and the GameCube, as well as other contemporary games.This is not as easy as it might seem, as the PlayStation 2 was getting new game titles for a whopping 13 years, and simply moving the year cut-off would encompass too many recent games as to reasonably be considered 'retro'. The easiest way to resolve this seems to be having two year cut-offs instead of one: one for the platform itself, and another for game titles. This would of course apply to PC games as well. Retro gaming means platforms launched in 2001 and earlier, and official game titles for those platforms released no later than December 2007 (homebrew console games made after this date will be permitted). The Microsoft Xbox, Nintendo GameCube, Nintendo Game Boy Advance, and Sony PlayStation 2 will now be considered "retro". I do see the argument for making seventh gen the new cutoff because now we're in 2025 and most of those games are now older than the Dreamcast was when it was added to /vr/'s list, but I think we should follow the trend and wait for the PS6 and whatever next Xbox console to launch first before allowing HD AAA games to be in the same category as Jackie Chan Adventures on GBA.

>>79 With the exception of the DS/PSP and the Wii's gimmicks, 7th-gen consoles and games are absolutely indistinguishable from the games coming out today. It would be pointless to include them in a dedicated retro gaming board when they would fit perfectly in a modern gaming board.

>>234 >and the Wii All 7th gen HOME consoles should be barred. The DS/PSP should join the Dreamcast as situationally exceptional consoles. Rest should be /v2k/.

>>159 >For me, if it's 2D, it's retro. Anything rendered in 3D? That's the new stuff that they just came out with a year or two ago. Yeah this is close to the biggest issue here. When 3D graphics became fully ordinary, the /vr/ era ended. That idea of a rolling 20-year window or whatever is nonsense. 3D games too new for /vr/ but too old to be called new can have their own board. Obviously you can't just shut out all 3D games of course. There were 3D games in the 1980s. Personally I want to put the split right past the PSX/N64/DS level of hardware. When and where 3D graphics were still novel and looked very different from one platform to the next (because of N64's blurring, PSX/DS nearest-neighbor texture filtering, older games' flat shading or even wireframe graphics, etc.), the /vr/ era survived, I claim. With the PS2, 3D graphics became fully ordinary and standardized, and the /vr/ era faded away. Dreamcast can go on either side of the boundary I guess; it isn't popular enough to mess things up by being in the wrong place.

Maybe I'm totally misremembering, but I'm sure that people were calling the Mega Drive and SNES retro pretty much as soon as the Playstation came out. I can say that I definitely saw people calling Final Fantasy 6 and Chrono Trigger "retro RPGs" by the early 2000s since the ROM sites I used called the Mega Drive and SNES "retro" consoles. This means people were applying "retro" to things not even a decade old. This kind of gets to my issue with making "retro" defined by years-past rather than an era in and of itself. I know it starts getting into the weeds, but to me there is a massive difference in games before the mid-to-late 90s and afterwards. I mean, Doom and Half-Life are only 5 years apart but they might as well be a lifetime for how different they are. This is why I put gaming into three main categories: Retro, Pre-modern, and Modern. The Playstation and N64 changed things, but that change wasn't fully manifest until a few generations later. Though I am sympathetic to marking the end of "retro" to be the death of Sega as a major player, since even Nintendo had to take a "if you can't beat them, join them" mindset eventually.

>>408 but what about the wacky "retro inspired" 2D game? Face it man, the "best" way this works is the 20 year rule.

>>430 >Retro-inspired Wow that was hard