What do you consider to be 'retro gaming' and why?

[Skykid]

So last night I engaged in heated and gradually more drunken videogaming debate with RupertH in a central London bar. In the light of day I can't really remember the finer points except that, once again, two incredibly like minded gamers managed to find something to disagree on (and had one too many beers to figure out a resolution.)

I'm curious what other people consider to be 'retro' gaming. My standpoint is that retro gaming is a dirty term and I hate its wanton misuse. For me, anything Famicom onwards is not 'retro', and I agree with Goichi Suda's similar statement in Brian Ashcraft's Arcade Mania interview.
My reasoning is that the basic formulas and incredible multitude of genres that were created in the Famicom era have continued to exist in one form or another up to the present day. Structures such as levels, lives, bosses, continues and directional control pads and their array of simple commands are not really any different. Graphics aside, Halo still has stages, bosses, jumps, ammunition, enemies, bombs - and even though it exists in 3D space, which changes the parameters of the game, it's still just a mobile crosshair shooting gallery (imo.)

Do you think that because 3D parameters drastically changed the physics of games, anything 2D should then be considered 'retro'?

I suppose I'm looking at it purely from the perspective of playability and enjoyability, and how much cinematic FPS's or MMORPG's or even racing games have really changed in their general make-up. Isn't Gran Turismo just a far more complex version of Out Run, essentially giving you the same goal of meeting time limits and the task of adjusting the controller in your hand to take finer corners?

Even online gaming was present and practiced in the Famicom era, and for me competitive gaming is the same whether you're sitting side by side or sitting online - it's just the numbers of simultaneous players that changes the experience... but then 4-player Bomberman is arguably very similar in that respect.

Although there are some blurred lines and grey areas, I just see modern gaming having more parallels and more in common with the groundwork laid out by the Famicom era than those of the era prior.

Sorry for the waffle, interested to hear your thoughts.

[Jockel]

To me, "retro" ends at about the Super Famicom era.

But it's really hard to put a finger on it.

[Lordstar]

To me, "retro" ends at about the Super Famicom era.

But it's really hard to put a finger on it.

Its odd that. I now consider it to be the generation before last. So for me the XBOX and PS2 are not retro but your PS1 and Sega saturn are.

Is the Dream cast retro though?

[rancor]

I suppose it's different for everyone.. Retrogamer magazine says its "up to and including the Dreamcast", which I think is a bit ridiculous. When I hear "retro gaming" I think of Nolan Bushnell, Magnavox Odysseys, and "Space War". Maybe early famicom where the carts all looked the same, but definitely nothing after.

[burgerkingdiamond]

I never use the term "retro gaming", but I would say that the only quality that really matters when describing a retro game would be the demanding difficulty level or emphasis on scoring. To me graphics, genre, age don't particularly matter. You can have a brand new game come out that has little or nothing to do with the mainstream of gaming today, and might as well be called retro. I'm thinking Geo Wars, SuperStardust HD, MegaMan 9,10 (these two are kind of odd because they are deliberately going way out of their way to be extremely retro).

To me it's simple. Nowadays it doesn't mean anything to finish a game. Anybody who picks up a given game can finish it. They are designed to be that way. Back in the day there was one dificulty mode, and it meant something to finish a game. It was called "beating" a game for a reason. You kept working at it until you beat that son of a bitch. Same thing goes for arcade games. Except you're playing for score.

Now I'm not an extreme purist. They are many "modern" games (although they're old by today's standards) that I really enjoyed. In the PSone day's I LOVED Metal Gear Solid (I hate MGS4. Absolutely hated it. No gameplay, just pretty cut scenes and senseless story), the Tomb Raiders, the first couple Tony Hawk games (SKATE is so much better though), and of course Fallout 3 is fucking awesome. Today though it's almost all online FPS's and other crap that just doesn't appeal to me.

[Ganelon]

I'm with Lordstar. What seems to be a common definition for "retro" is anything more than 2 video game generations in the past. At least that's the point where a regular joe would consider a game to be old. The DC would be my cutoff cusp but I'd include it since it was a concrete start to the 6th generation (and direct PS2 competitor for a short time).

Normally, when I see the word "retro," I instinctively think back to the pre-crash, pre-Famicom, golden age arcade era. Some may also point to when 3D graphics started overwhelming the console market (during the main 32-bit era). Others right now may feel it's when the concept of "bits" no longer mattered (PS2 and beyond). Personally, I don't like using the word because of its ambiguity.

[Skykid]

When I hear "retro gaming" I think of Nolan Bushnell, Magnavox Odysseys, and "Space War".

Normally, when I see the word "retro," I instinctively think back to the pre-crash, pre-Famicom, golden age arcade era. Some may also point to when 3D graphics started overwhelming the console market. Personally, I don't like using the word because of its ambiguity.

That's more how I perceive things. I suppose I'm more coming from the point of how games play than how they look, specifically. If I was asked to define retro in terms of graphics, I'd probably also consider anything pre-Playstation to be the dividing line.

But is there really a gulf of difference between the iphone gaming revolution and famicom puzzle and adventure games? Surely they're the exact same thing?
With the next generation of consoles destined to become more download focussed, I'm expecting even more home coded 2D efforts than before representing 'modern' gaming.

[Drum]

It doesn't bother me when it's used as a neutral descriptor, but as descriptors go it's pretty arbitrary - most people use 'retro' to describe the sorts of games they grew up playing, but it varies. When I saw the topic title what popped into my head was Asteroids/Space Invaders - I click on the thread and you're talking about Famicom. And then you run off a list of tropes that were introduced a generation earlier! You make me sad, Skykid.

People also use it as a term to describe games that evoke the past (usually graphically - actual old games frequently had more clever/interesting gameplay than they are remembered for by the people who make these ... pick a random gameplay mechanic and there's almost always an earlier precedent than most people think). When somebody calls Geo Wars/ Pac Man CE 'retro' are you really gonna get on their case?

I don't know how else to designate older games ... 'old' sounds worse than 'retro' and 'classic' is more loaded than either. I'm fine with retro, but I prepare for confusion.
You can talk about how Halo and GT are basically evolved versions of older games (I balk at calling Halo a shooting gallery - I've played actual shooting galleries and Halo is not like them). But you can attempt to boil concepts down to their essences for illustrative purposes, or to equivocate - and you are really doing the latter here. If someone were to describe something as 'retro' and when pressed explain that they meant it is: more challenging than modern games, simpler than modern games, more abstract than modern games etc. etc. ... I submit that falls under fair use, even if you can argue any one of those things.

Finally, a couple of random thoughts: 3D games have been around almost as long as 2D games. Just sayin'! Also, if you want to get really nitpicky, cinematics have been there since very early on too. Certainly western/sci fi left their mark. Fire up Sheriff (1979) on MAME and the cinematics assault you right away. Laser disc games were there since '83.

EDIT: Holy shit, this thread moved fast.

[Skykid]

It doesn't bother me when it's used as a neutral descriptor, but as descriptors go it's pretty arbitrary - most people use 'retro' to describe the sorts of games they grew up playing, but it varies. When I saw the topic title what popped into my head was Asteroids/Space Invaders - I click on the thread and you're talking about Famicom. And then you run off a list of tropes that were introduced a generation earlier! You make me sad, Skykid.

Ha ha, sorry man You're right of course, they were present a generation earlier, and as I said it is a bit of a grey area when trying to distinguish definite 'change' between pre and post Famicom eras. I suppose Famicom gaming was a revolution in terms of fleshing out opportunities in game mechanics. It offered new freedoms and scale, and implemented basic gaming structures that (in my mind at least) don't seem to have really been revolutionised a great deal since. The biggest argument is how much has 3D virtual space fundamentally changed the way we play games? Does the depth of field movement automatically redefine the very raw basics of the game?

3D fighting games are still governed by simple time-based commands, FPS's still rely on crosshair accuracy, MMORPG's still require you to talk to NPC's, gather information and watch stat-counters. All this shit was explored thoroughly on the Famicom and in every subsequent generation.

[cools]

All this shit

Most intelligent thing you've ever said.

Retro = old shit that's been surpassed.
Classic = old shit that still rules.

[Skykid]

All this shit

Most intelligent thing you've ever said.

Retro = old shit that's been surpassed.
Classic = old shit that still rules.

But it's all the same shit though really.

[cools]

Yeah, they're all games. Most of them shit

[emphatic]

For me "retro" should only be used (when aimed at gaming) to describe a current title mimicking looks and gameplay of the past. Like "it has a retro look". "Old school" can also be used for when you keep it real.

Words like this come and go, typically because of journalists and other pop media, and at first they work, but after a (very short) while, they tend to be an eyesore for enthusiasts, or NERDS like what most people consider us l33t hardcore gamers.

[jonny5]

According to most of my friends, 'retro games' denotes everything I play.

Although they generally prefer the term 'those crazy japanese games'.

For me personally, the term 'retro' denotes games that pre-date my interest; So anything pre-late 80's/early 90's, but its not really a term I would use for anything except hippy clothes.

[Stormwatch]

"Retro" is whatever my shamefully outdated computer can emulate at full speed.

How about splitting 2D and 3D? I think the Mega Drive was the first console whose 2D graphics still feel modern, and the Dreamcast was the first console whose 3D graphics still feel modern. Therefore: retro 2D is anything up to the 3rd generation, retro 3D is anything up to the 5th generation.

[gum_drops]

Here is the breakdown for me

Current Gen
Last Gen
Classic gaming - Anything pre Dreamcast
Retro gaming - Anything pre NES

[ryu]

when games didn't want to be shitty movies

[njiska]

ret·ro
   /ˈrɛtroʊ/ Show Spelled[re-troh] Show IPA
–adjective Informal .
1.
retroactive: retro pay.
2.
of or designating the style of an earlier time: retro clothes.


Any discussion beyond this is just going to turn into another case of elitist versus other, different elitists.

[burgerkingdiamond]

when games didn't want to be shitty movies

perfect

[Pixel_Outlaw]

* Low resolutions
* Limited palettes
* Simple directional control with 2 or 3 buttons

[E. Randy Dupre]

My standpoint is that retro gaming is a dirty term

This. I absolutely refuse to use the word if I can at all avoid it. I watch black and white movies and listen to music from throughout the last century. That's not retro-viewing or retro-listening. They're classic movies or classic recordings. Books, too. The use of the word 'retro' to describe older games simply demonstrates how young the medium still is and how little regard even its own fans hold it in.

[Paradigm]

of or designating the style of an earlier time: retro clothes.

This.

Pac Man CE is a perfect example of a retro game. SNES, NES, C64 or however far back you want to go are not retro consoles/computers by definition, they're simply old.

[Vyxx]

Everyone just calls whatever they grew up with Retro.

[Dragoforce]

I don't consider any kind of gamin to be retro. I never really understood why people label older games with it. Following the retro game logic, Casablanca is a retro movie and Edith piaf is retro music. Games are games, labeling older games as retro diminishes their value, both artistically and gameplay-wise.

[drauch]

I hate the term as well, but I generally consider retrogaming pre (and including) SNES and such.

[BulletMagnet]

"Retro" is whatever my shamefully outdated computer can emulate at full speed.

I can get behind that one.

[evil_ash_xero]

I'd say up through the 16 bit era.

I wouldn't say that Playstation, Saturn, and Dreamcast are retro, since the type of 3D games that are all over the place now, were pretty abundant on these machines. They LOOK better now, but it started here.

[captpain]

WHO CARES

[drauch]

WHO CARES

Skykid.

[Vexorg]

Hmmm... I'd be half-tempted to say anything through the 16-bit era would qualify as "Retro," but really reserve the term "Classic" for arcade games up to 1985 or so, and pre-NES consoles.