Topic: What does "Retro" mean to you?

I'm sure this topic's been beat to death, but I thought I'd throw in my two cents.

The term "retro" is really subjective and personal. Everyone has their own opinion as to what falls into the bucket of retro-gaming, as we can see with the plethora of answers in this thread. I sort of dislike the term, in a way, but I do use it as well. I'm not trying to suggest this thread was tasked with finding a definition for "retro", just in case I came across that way.

If I over-think it, I'd say that retro is N64 era and earlier to me. I've been gaming since the NES was new and current, and I feel like N64 is retro. I'd say, however, I usually think of retro in terms of anything earlier than the current-gen, so Gamecube, Playstation 2, XBox and Gameboy Advance fall in there as well, but the case has definitely been made against that with the PS2 still being on shelves.

I think we can all agree that there was a sensibility in game design before this current-gen that has been somewhat lost, and that's why there is such thing as "retro-gaming" as a whole, and why many of us find ourselves falling back to the older titles to get that nostalgic fix.

these days, many developers put a lot more focus on graphics and how it looks, with gameplay playing second fiddle. i don't care how crap the graphics look: if i enjoy the gameplay and the characters, then that's enough. that's why i prefer the retro consoles and games because people weren't so obsessed with how a game looked back then.

During the 8-bit era those who played video games were not so much into graphics. It was definitely more about gameplay and hopefully fun 2 player co-op with your friends or some nice strangers. Once the 16-bit era rolled in I believe is when graphics started becoming more important. The ones that had "awesome" graphics really stood out from the weaker looking games of the time though the 16-bit era has such an awesome distinct style anyway that to this day there are few titles I don't dig how they look. I remember flipping through my Nintendo Power back in the day and being like "Holy Smoke, that game looks amazing! I hope that games looks as amazing on my CRT TV as it does in the photos."

Thats how I feel about most of the modern games although there are exceptions like Batman Arkham Asylum for example that had the perfect blend of great graphics and a good storyline. But sadly I have to say that yeah nowadays it seems to be more about graphics. That right there is the main reason I lost interest in the Final Fantasy series. Once FFVII hit it seemed like that all they cared about was the graphics and the great storylines that previous installments like FFVI or FFIV were taking a backseat to graphics.

And I dont think people werent obsess the the way the games look I think it was more that they were limited by technology at the time.

the genesis/super nintendo were much more advanced than the N.E.S, master system- more colours, better graphics, sound tended to be superior as well. the 16 bit era was as great as the 8 bit era, especially during the sega vs nintendo days.

gaming today is just not the same, and though many people dislike SEGA, they put up a good fight. i wished they were still around today joining with nintendo as the only sole console and games developers companies.

Yes, because FFVII had such amazing graphics.

Pretty much. When the Wii U hits GameCube will be considered retro, just like the N64 was considered during the Wii's reign.

Final Fantasy VI is all about graphics and features a weak story stuffed with too many characters to give most of them any backstory at all.

Final Fantasy VI was still better than every other Final Fantasy game.

I have to agree. FF6 is my fave, too. FF9 should not be missed, though.

to me "retro" means anything prior to 3d polygons and cd quality sound.

all jokes aside, i feel the same way about Mega Man 8, Castlevania SOTN and Castlevania Chronicles.
oh yeah plus Final Doom, and the retro arcade comps that came out on PS1 and PS2

sony in their PS1 days were all right but after that, i think they've become too arrogant at times for their own sake and picking battles with nintendo. as for microsoft, x box was good, but as for the kinnect, it's really a wii without the motion controls and a controller and most of the first party games, exc. halo on the 360 aren't that great. and i prefer playing games with a controller.

the thing with the SEGA vs nintendo rivalry was, even though it was a rivalry between say the genesis vs super nintendo, it was the fact they were video game and hardware companies pitting themselves against each other. yes, it was a bitter rivalry back then, but when i think of it, i respect SEGA more now than ever. because they fought as good as they did and some of their games were as good as many of nintendo's games. now, you have sony who not only makes game consoles but also other electrical items such as TVs, mp3 players, dvd players, laptops, phones etc. and microsoft have their computers, software, internet explorer-which i avoid using as a browser.

if either sony or microsoft go out of the video game business, they have nothing to lose financially because their money can come from sales of their computers, TVs, software. whereas nintendo, if they did go out of the business, they're stand to lose everything as their sales come from the console and games sales. and which is why investors are forcing them to go down the mobile gaming route. which i am against- unless nintendo decide to release their own cell phone, because they think this is the way to keep nintendo afloat.

To me, I suppose it means anything that's been out for at least a year. This might seem controversial, but technically, coming from the word "retrospect," it is pretty much anything in the past. But I think that it would have to be at least a year old to not be called new.

On the other hand, I would consider legacy platforms anything before last generation.

I know it's been mentioned before, but for me... "Retro" when it comes to video games... is ALL systems and games released before the current generation. That includes the Gamecube, PS2 and the Xbox.

I mean, sure, there are always exceptions, like some random group of people releasing a Dreamcast game or Atlus publishing the latest Japanese niche RPG PS2 game or what have you, but this is supposed to be a general classification, not a specific one.

For games, it they're making HD remakes of them now, there's no good reason that the original sources are not considered Retro

Metroid Prime, God of War, Prince of Persia, Sly Cooper, Metal Gear Solid, Beyond Good & Evil and
yes... even Halo: Combat Evolved...all Retro.

Everything before 1995/96. I don't think the PS1 and N64 should be considered "retro" yet, but they're getting there I suppose.

Anything before the age of the internet. Cartridges and floppy disks. Mostly stuff of the 80's. 1998 seems like a very short time ago for me, so that's definitely not retro for me. Mid 90's is a stretch.

Retro, as far as I'm concerned, is anything for which new games are no longer actively being made (I don't count hobbyist programmers still making stuff for the Atari VCS or the Dreamcast, etc.). But I guess that must include the Wii then?

Retro is...... basically whatever you grew up with.

So to me, that would be anything in the Playstation era and prior.