So, what is Retro anyway?

CiDeRmAn

Arising in the Game of the Week thread was a nascent debate arguing about what is Retro.
Not the typical discussion about if the Xbox or GameCube have made that grade, but if Street Fighter 2 is Retro or Classic or both, and if other titles are "more retro" like Double Dragon.
So, let's hear views, and keep it clean, no hitting below the belt and no CDi

Retr0gamer

Saying something isn't retro is the old videogames equivalent of hipsterism. If it's not retro it will be eventually. If you think it's old then it is.

Steve X2

I suppose it also comes down to the age of the person. I'm 36, so SF2 is definitely retro to me as I played it as a kid.
Now, if a person is 56-66 etc, then it probably isn't quite so retro to them.

CosmicSmash

Steve X2 wrote: »

Now, if a person is 56-66 etc, then it probably isn't quite so retro to them.

Surely Ciderman isn't that old, I thought he only had a year on me.

CiDeRmAn

I'm 44 tomorrow

CosmicSmash

I'll be 43 in April, so not too far behind you. I don't want to stray off topic but I noticed a thread about older gamers in the playstation forum. Personally speaking, my first console was a second hand 2600, loved it at the time but I wouldn't go near one now. The eighties and early nineties for me will always be the golden age.

AVFC.Stephen

i have decided to come up with a few titles that dont actually have to be too old but are old enough in my eyes to be retro. i base this on originality and age of the game. i will try do a list of 10 and will not go into atari at all. well maybe the atari ST

1) the last ninja c64
2) kung fu nes
3) train robbers c64
4) rick dangerous atari ST or amiga (think the versions are the same)
5) prince of persia orignal verion, atari ST/amiga
6) double dragon arcade version
7) zelda snes
8) resident evil ps1
9) metal gear ps1 though first version was on the nes
10) gta liberty city

now i know we could talk about many more games that are retro like mario or tetris etc. but its games like these that deserve to be called retro because of what they have offered the games of today. these types of games were a game changer imo.

they hold value, they were not just old, but a success, they were also original. maybe not all but to my knowledge they were lol

Myrddin

I don't ascribe anything other than age to the definition of retro...how can one C64 game be retro and another one not?

Steve X2

Myrddin wrote: »

I don't ascribe anything other than age to the definition of retro...how can one C64 game be retro and another one not?

Yeah I agree, if it’s a very old game its retro.
Now some retro games are great/groundbreaking/game changers etc and what we might call "Classics", and some are crap, but retro none the less.

AVFC.Stephen, do you mean “Classic” or something like that when you say “Retro”?

Myrddin

Indeed, 'Classic' is there the line between garbage & greatness is drawn...but old is old regardless of quality

AVFC.Stephen

Myrddin wrote: »

I don't ascribe anything other than age to the definition of retro...how can one C64 game be retro and another one not?

i would guess its got to do with fashion. thats how i would describe whats retro... the consoles/computers themselves are retro but not all games i would consider.

maybe i have the meaning of the word wrong in my head lol. its just when i think of lets say alien v predator on the snes... while the snes is certainly a retro machine, the folks that made that game should be shot. imo there needs to be something about the game that makes it retro. not just age

Steve X2

Myrddin wrote: »

Indeed, 'Classic' is there the line between garbage & greatness is drawn...but old is old regardless of quality

Now come on, will you leave Cidey alone. It's his birthday tomorrow and we should all be more supportive.

AVFC.Stephen

Steve X2 wrote: »

Yeah I agree, if it’s a very old game its retro.
Now some retro games are great/groundbreaking/game changers etc and what we might call "Classics", and some are crap, but retro none the less.

AVFC.Stephen, do you mean “Classic” or something like that when you say “Retro”?

lol starting to get confused now myself. without looking up what retro means, i dont think something just needs to be old to be retro. few more bangs of the hammer and i might be able to come to a compromise lol

Star Lord

Yeah, I'd say you're ascribing what the others have been using, 'Classic' in place of 'Retro'.

Retro doesn't mean good, just means it's of a certain vintage. The vast majority of retro games wouldn't be particularly great, it's the classics among them that really stand out and stand the test of time.

Then again, some of the games mentioned in the other thread as being retro while others of similar vintage weren't would perhaps be better described as genre defining or revolutionary at the time.

Myrddin

AVFC.Stephen wrote: »

i would guess its got to do with fashion. thats how i would describe whats retro... the consoles/computers themselves are retro but not all games i would consider.

maybe i have the meaning of the word wrong in my head lol. its just when i think of lets say alien v predator on the snes... while the snes is certainly a retro machine, the folks that made that game should be shot. imo there needs to be something about the game that makes it retro. not just age

I guess folks have different ideas of what retro is, for me, playability/quality etc don't come into it. At that rate, you could write off entire library's of old games because they were poor. It doesn't change the fact they're old though, hence, retro...

CosmicSmash

Myrddin wrote: »

I guess folks have different ideas of what retro is, for me, playability/quality etc don't come into it. At that rate, you could write off the entire library of CD-i games because they were crap. It doesn't change the fact they're old though, hence, retro...

Sorry Retro, had to be done.

steve_r

Maybe it's looking at it from a different angle, I would consider a game like Streets of Rage more retro than SF, irregardless of age, becuase SF is still a live series whilst Streets of Rage is not.

Likewise with the types of games that are now not as prevelant, like top down adventures.

There are also some sound and graphical styles that were distinct to their time, as opposed to just being "the best they could do" at that time.

I think if you look at modern indie games who look to have a retro feel its clear what they are looking to appropiate.

I'd agree that all old games are retro, however I would say we would associate the "retro" label more with truely great games that were created in spite of hardware limitations of the time, rather than games that were just "good for their time".

Myrddin

steve_r wrote: »

I'd agree that all old games are retro, however I would say we would associate the "retro" label more with truely great games that were created in spite of hardware limitations of the time, rather than games that were just "good for their time".

Have to disagree (again ) there, I don't associate the retro label any more so with one game of the same vintage than another. It's purely defined by age for me. That's a bit like saying it's not vintage wine unless it tastes good...

smurf492

AVFC.Stephen wrote:

maybe i have the meaning of the word wrong in my head lol. its just when i think of lets say alien v predator on the snes... while the snes is certainly a retro machine, the folks that made that game should be shot. imo there needs to be something about the game that makes it retro. not just age

If the snes is a retro machine then why aren't the games released on the snes also retro? Fair enough not all games are classic but in fairness go back to older consoles and see how many games can be classed as revolutionary compared to todays output on xbox/PlayStation.

CosmicSmash

The age of a game would be the only factor, I agree quality should not be considered as a qualifying criteria. Today's games will be considered retro by some people in the future, the hard part will be finding a working console to play them on.

imitation

Retro is a tricky one to define, when world of warcraft came out, the megadrive was easily very retro, its hayday being 12 years before. Now warcraft is 12 years old and it doesnt feel very retro at all, nor do many of the games of its time.

For me I think gaming had various jumps, either with new genres (3d games, rts's) and technological leaps (16 bit,3d graphics ala quake, shaders etc) or even just gameplay changes (chest high walls, quick time events yuk). Its these changes that help define the rough era of a game for me and if its retro or not. I think for me the ps2 is where retro gaming starts.

smurf492

CosmicSmash wrote: »

The age of a game would be the only factor, I agree quality should not be considered as a qualifying criteria. Today's games will be considered retro by some people in the future, the hard part will be finding a working console to play them on.

Quite true. Must say the day of release PS3 that cost me 700 notes back in 2006 is still holding up pretty well... :O

eddhorse

Im gonna say it goes on age.

PS2 is retro for me as there are two newer versions of this console.

Although i wouldnt say the original wii is retro.

Someone smart is gonna say the Wii is older than the PS2 in a min.

Mr.Saturn

I've come to resent the tag 'retro' for it has come to usually denote I'm about to be charged a hefty premium for something I could have picked up 10 of for the same price five years ago.

Anyways, my rule of thumb is that if an eBay ad has "RARE" in the title, or it is being sold by RAGE at the cost of your first born, it exists as 'retro' in the popular imagination.

Star Lord

eddhorse wrote: »

Im gonna say it goes on age.

PS2 is retro for me as there are two newer versions of this console.

Although i wouldnt say the original wii is retro.

Someone smart is gonna say the Wii is older than the PS2 in a min.

Wii was PS3 era. The GameCube was out around the same time as the PS2, and I'd count it as retro at this stage!

eddhorse

Star Lord wrote: »

Wii was PS3 era. The GameCube was out around the same time as the PS2, and I'd count it as retro at this stage!

Great then at least two of us agree on something.:D

CiDeRmAn

Steve X2 wrote: »

Now come on, will you leave Cidey alone. It's his birthday tomorrow and we should all be more supportive.

:eek:

CiDeRmAn

Retro is a function of age, and it gets fuzzy when you have a current machine, so a 10 year old PS3 isn't Retro, but the PS1 is.
The PS2 doesn't feel Retro because so many got their start there and it doesn't feel that long ago but, it really was! Some 15 years!
Classic and you're into stone cold awesome games, and this isn't a function of age at all, though it may be a title that has gone on to inspire.
So Demon's Souls and Portal could be classics, along with older fare like Tempest 2000 and Galaga.

To make things more complex you've also got Cult games.
Often unloved titles these also have no concerns with age of title but are certainly revolutionary in some way but do have flaws that the player must overcome to get the most, Deadly Premonition on the 360 would be a good example, as would Rule of Rose on PS2.

imitation

Maybe you can apply a hd remaster rule, if you update the graphics and people are generally ok with it, its not retro (killzone/god of war and other ps2 games). If it causes mass unrest then its probably retro (final fantasy 6 anybody?) http://kotaku.com/why-final-fantasy-vi-pcs-art-looks-so-bad-1748333208

zoobizoo

In terms of arcades, I see Retro as all that went before Street Fighter.

I remember being in the Hideout on South William St. back in 90 / 91 and Street Fight was there. I never went near it - way too many buttons. I just didn't get it.

Arcades changed forever when SF came in - prices went up, fun games with regular sized units started disappearing.

I'm from Bray and I grew up with the "amusements" of The Fun Palace, The Star and Dawsons ... as well as smaller places like Mud's, Loppy's and the place beside Dawsons.

blag

Isn't retro just short for retrospective? Or at least derived from the word?

There's not too much to debate here really,as already pointed out the age of a game determines whether a game falls into the category of looking to the past or not.

How far we look back might be up for debate though.

retrospective
rɛtrə(ʊ)ˈspɛktɪv/Submit
adjective
1.
looking back on or dealing with past events or situations.
"our survey was retrospective"
synonyms: backdated, retroactive, ex post facto, backward-looking
"the Government introduced retrospective legislation to change the rules"
noun
1.
an exhibition or compilation showing the development of an artist's work over a period of time.
"a Georgia O'Keeffe retrospective"

JustShon

For me retro is SNES era and earlier, with the first PlayStation being on the border.

CiDeRmAn

I think it also can mean that it's hard to see consoles you bought at launch as retro.
Unfortunately that means everything from the ZX Spectrum onwards is, at one stage or another, current gen!

I wonder about the experience of some of you, who came to the videogame scene later, who got to look back on machines like the Megadrive and Snes as consoles that were already superseded by the time they came to games with the advent of the PS or even PS2.

eddhorse

I would also like to see that stat.
I started with c64 so everything from there to ps2 is retro for me.

Who drags up this topic, its confusing...

Linoud

I'd consider PS1/N64 era as Retro, since I can remember when they came out as a kid. PS2/Gamecube feels too recent, even though it has been 15 odd years or so someone said? I'll probably consider it as retro in a few more years though. Feels odd to say a console that is two generations behind and I still see games being sold in stores for is retro.

I guess when a platform is phased out of typical game stores, I'd consider it more retro? I dunno.

I don't think quality of a game determines retro status or not, just age.

eddhorse

Good point, when its not available in the stores.

Although i think they dont sell Wii games anymore, only Wii U. Maybe they dont manufacture them.

Linoud

Gamestop and CEX still have an abundance of Wii and DS titles. They're generally throw on the same shelves as the WiiU ones since they don't get much stock in for them it seems, least the Tallaght stores don't. Town is sometimes similar.

But yeah, I see PS2 and Xbox originals in CEX all the time, so maybe that's why I don't think they're retro yet.

Doge

eddhorse wrote: »

Good point, when its not available in the stores.

Although i think they dont sell Wii games anymore, only Wii U. Maybe they dont manufacture them.

Thats one I saw popup recently online!

eddhorse

Doge wrote: »

Thats one I saw popup recently online!

You and your dance games !!

Doge

eddhorse wrote: »

You and your dance games !!

eddhorse

Doge wrote: »

I....I....I....just dont know what to say

CiDeRmAn

Retro at this point is often those games you owned as a child, so they are infused with nostalgia.
The retro we speak of here abouts tends to be that subset of such games that are actually damn fine titles in their own right, be it Tetris on the Gameboy, Speedball 2 on the Megadrive, Sensible Soccer on the Amiga or Galaga in the arcade.

eddhorse

What about the likes of Mario Maker, Shovel Knight or Axiom Verge that have retro elements?

Retr0gamer

eddhorse wrote: »

What about the likes of Mario Maker, Shovel Knight or Axiom Verge that have retro elements?

They're new games. Graphics don't make a game retro.

o1s1n

Retr0gamer wrote: »

They're new games. Graphics don't make a game retro.

Its an interesting point though as they're 'retro styled' - kind of like how you get modern furniture etc that's styled after stuff from say, the 50's - which is considered retro.

Tbh its a silly non discript term which I reckon will eventually (and hopefully) die out.

The word 'classic' is far better and apt IMO.

Steve X2

eddhorse wrote: »

What about the likes of Mario Maker, Shovel Knight or Axiom Verge that have retro elements?

Retro style, not retro.

eddhorse

o1s1n wrote: »

The word 'classic' is far better and apt IMO.

Arcade and Classic forum it is...:D

CiDeRmAn

Games such as Mario Maker and Shovel Knight celebrate the visuals, sounds and gameplay of older titles, for different reasons, though for the same end goal.
The reasons for Nintendo to do it is to reframe trends in hacking Mario platformers into "new" challenges and handing that power to the player, making the experience a game in itself. They also get to celebrate their legacy and generate a new IP without heavy investment into new assets, although there is certainly a lot of design in the background to make it all work.
Shovel Knight then takes classic Megaman and other scrolling platformers on the NES and rebuilds them using the best elements of the old and also using the best that the new has to offer, so you have a beautiful art style and sounds coupled with a modern approach to character death and development.
Both titles have the same goal, to make themselves relevant and popular with a modern audience, which they both have.

I have my doubts that, when Nintendo turn the Mario Maker servers off, it'll still be worth owning.
But Shovel Knight, especially the physical formats, could be played and appreciated in 30 years time still.