I can understand the PS360 argument. It was probably the last generation where most games were actually playable off the disc without a bunch of patches.
With how common DLC and stuff was becoming that generation, though, I feel like it’s sort of a soft boundary for retro. I can equally accept retro being anything before the PS360, or before/including that generation.
I don’t look forward to the days where “retro gaming” refers to “any console with physical releases at all”.
It doesn’t feel right to count that generation as retro, for reasons like GTA 5, which was initially released for those consoles, yet it’s still considered a current game, with no significant overhaul beyond graphical fidelity. It’s the greatest example of how games haven’t drastically evolved since then.
Compared to the jump from SNES to N64 and PS1, or from PS1 to PS3, we haven’t had any major breakthrough, just moderate incremental improvement.
It’s not about holding up, it’s about playing pretty much the same, while mostly just looking prettier.
While lines are never quite so clear cut, from SNES to N64/PS1 we unlocked a whole variety of 3D games, and by PS3/XB360 we added open-world games, immersive sims and console MMOs to our repertoire. But what new horizons were unlocked by technological advancements since? Only battle royales come to mind.
Surely today’s games are larger, more beautiful and have embraced QoL aspects that we discovered along the way. But today’s games don’t feel as markedly different as any previous leaps.
I agree that it doesn’t feel right, but I can understand the justification, haha
“Retro gaming” is a pretty broad description, anyways. There were probably people who didn’t want to include the 3D consoles, and even those who didn’t want to include cartridge-based consoles, haha
I mean it makes sense, I remember around 2006 everyone referred to the SNES as “retro” and no one questioned it. That’s a smaller time gap than 360 era to now.
For sure, though I think a couple of things make it weird to me. Games changed a lot more in that early period, I think. Plus a lot of games in the PS3 / 360 era seem to just get rereleased slightly differently every few years which kind of makes it seem like we never left that generation.
That is true, it was the first truly modern console generation.
Ultimately I think retro gaming is rooted in nostalgia. People will always gravitate to the consoles they grew up with, making them “retro.” Probably why those rereleases do well.
I’m curious to see what happens in 10-15 years when games-as-a-service hits that point, and how the retrogaming community deals with that. With games like Halo 3 being a stretch now, I can’t imagine a world where Fortnite and Super Mario World exist in the same category.
What counts as retro these days anyway? It still kind of blows my mind that some people consider the PS3 / 360 retro now.
I can understand the PS360 argument. It was probably the last generation where most games were actually playable off the disc without a bunch of patches.
With how common DLC and stuff was becoming that generation, though, I feel like it’s sort of a soft boundary for retro. I can equally accept retro being anything before the PS360, or before/including that generation.
I don’t look forward to the days where “retro gaming” refers to “any console with physical releases at all”.
It doesn’t feel right to count that generation as retro, for reasons like GTA 5, which was initially released for those consoles, yet it’s still considered a current game, with no significant overhaul beyond graphical fidelity. It’s the greatest example of how games haven’t drastically evolved since then.
Compared to the jump from SNES to N64 and PS1, or from PS1 to PS3, we haven’t had any major breakthrough, just moderate incremental improvement.
I’m not sure that means much. Many really old games hold up from like the SNES or PS2.
It’s not about holding up, it’s about playing pretty much the same, while mostly just looking prettier.
While lines are never quite so clear cut, from SNES to N64/PS1 we unlocked a whole variety of 3D games, and by PS3/XB360 we added open-world games, immersive sims and console MMOs to our repertoire. But what new horizons were unlocked by technological advancements since? Only battle royales come to mind.
Surely today’s games are larger, more beautiful and have embraced QoL aspects that we discovered along the way. But today’s games don’t feel as markedly different as any previous leaps.
I agree it’s not clear cut. The PS2 generation defined many core concepts of 3D games; Like Gran Turismo 7 plays the same as Gran Turismo 4.
The 360 gen did define a lot of the more complex concepts.
I agree that it doesn’t feel right, but I can understand the justification, haha
“Retro gaming” is a pretty broad description, anyways. There were probably people who didn’t want to include the 3D consoles, and even those who didn’t want to include cartridge-based consoles, haha
15 years for me. :)
That seems reasonable, but oof it makes me feel old lol.
I mean it makes sense, I remember around 2006 everyone referred to the SNES as “retro” and no one questioned it. That’s a smaller time gap than 360 era to now.
For sure, though I think a couple of things make it weird to me. Games changed a lot more in that early period, I think. Plus a lot of games in the PS3 / 360 era seem to just get rereleased slightly differently every few years which kind of makes it seem like we never left that generation.
That is true, it was the first truly modern console generation.
Ultimately I think retro gaming is rooted in nostalgia. People will always gravitate to the consoles they grew up with, making them “retro.” Probably why those rereleases do well.
I’m curious to see what happens in 10-15 years when games-as-a-service hits that point, and how the retrogaming community deals with that. With games like Halo 3 being a stretch now, I can’t imagine a world where Fortnite and Super Mario World exist in the same category.
Videogames (also) do get “older” so the “retro” bar tends to raise.