• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Do you consider the xbox 360, ps3, and wii to be retro?

Cryio

Member
I guess Generation Z considers X360/PS3 retro. Like "eeww, what an old looking game".
Whereas anyone else considers them still very much fine.

There are games and games. I can play Xbox/PS2/GameCube games and they feel fine to me. However, there are games (Resistance 1 from 2006) for example, that feel dated AF. The whole ... wanting to be more modern, but they're jank AF compared to modern titles and not quite as polished as older titles.

Even Assassin's Creed 1 and 2 feels extremely dated to me. Brotherhood and up are fine though.
 
Last edited:

Alan Wake

Member
Not a simple answer to this, but I sort of consider them retro once they're discontinued. Dreamcast still gets new releases but it's definitely retro.
 

KungFucius

Member
Maybe the Wii because it was basically a GC Pro and had the fad motion control thing that has mostly faded. PS360 were just shittier PS4/Xbones which themselves are just shittier PS5/XSXs. Plus the switch is just a little more powerful than the PS360.
 

Kdad

Member
I'm still on my PS3 backlog so it is my daily. So no, it isnt retro...and I'm playing the same GTA as you punks on your PS5s/ Xbox Series X :p
 

cireza

Member
8/16 bits is retro to me. Might include Saturn/PS1/N64 as well, but it was already the era of 3D.
 
Last edited:

Umbasaborne

Member
2005 retro? You're joking, right?
I know it sounds crazy, but in 2005 the super nintendo was retro. Now we are the same amount of time away from the 360 as we were from the snes/genesis in 2005. Its reasonable to suspect that pswii60 can be considered retro. For refference i was borne in 1990, my first game console was a super nintendo.
 

BlackTron

Member
Some people consider retro gaming to be whatever they were playing as a kid, and whatever the new stuff is to be modern. Because the PS360 gen lasted so long, that means there are a lot of younger people who will consider it retro because 10 years ago is literally half the time they have lived and feels like antiquity. If you are 20 years old, and first played a system when you were 10, that's gonna seem "retro".

However I think those systems are simply too modern and similar to their successors to be really retro. For example I would not call a gtx 1060 retro just because we have 3060 now. But a Riva card with a pentium II? Now THAT's retro! So many PS3 games were ported to PS4 just for a performance bump. Most PS4 games would be possible on PS3 with a performance downgrade. That only falls into retro if your definition is "anything before current contemporary games". Try downgrading PS2 to PS1, yeah right.

The farther back you go, the bigger leaps were made with available technology. As you advance, progress became very slow and iterative. In my opinion, Dreamcast was the last big jump and everything since has been a slow progression of essentially the same thing. It marked a point where 3D graphics and game design left the janky antiquity of N64/PS1/Saturn, which I consider retro games.

I have always thought of the N64 as having the same role for 3D games that NES had for 2D. Mario 64 was a revolution that defined 3D game design the same way SMB did for 2D games on NES. Both systems, while a big deal for their time, were totally and utterly dated as soon as their successors came out. 64 is as much a retro 3D system as the NES is a 2D one.

The 64's successor, Gamecube, ironed out all the primitive first-gen-3D jankiness of the 64 and even had launch games like Rogue Squadron II that still look fine today. Much of its library could just get a resolution and framerate bump and be perfectly playable today for a modern audience used to current games. This applies equally to PS2 and Xbox.

So I personally consider 64/PS1/SAT and anything prior to be "retro". Anything newer is either modern or just playing on a dated system. PCs from 2010 are not retro, they're just dated.
 

Hunnybun

Member
It's just a matter of how we define retro.

I'd say, as it's normally used, it would be summed up as something that is old enough to not just look/feel old, but to be charming/quaint too. Like something from another era, something evocative.

I know that's all highly subjective but there you are.

To me even an early 360/PS3 game doesn't feel like that. They just look like crap versions of modern games to me. I mean, really we barely have any idea what a new gen game even looks like yet, so in effect the 360 is only one generation removed from our idea of cutting edge games. So I'd say it's too soon.

PS2 imo is the cutoff for retro consoles.
 

RAIDEN1

Member
To this day Blur hasn't been bettered, come at me PS-5 and Die Hard Xbox Series X fans, and while you are it, bring a copy of Top Spin 4 with you as well...
 
At this point N64/PS1/Saturn is retro to me. Dreamcast on the line. PS2 no way.

I'm more or less the same. Don't know why. If the year the console was launched begins with a 1, it's retro. Or something.

It's definitely the most fruitless discussion in gaming.
 

Onironauta

Member
I feel like there haven't been big gameplay revolutions in the last 20 years when it comes to single player games.
For me the line was the introduction of the second analog stick for camera control. So PS2 and anything after that is not really retro.
 
Last edited:

nkarafo

Member
I know it sounds crazy, but in 2005 the super nintendo was retro.
Yeah but in 2005 the 360 was released and the difference between that and a SNES was massive. Like, you simply can't even play similar games on the SNES. Its a completely different experience. The games have a different design philosophy.

The diffence between the 360 and a Series X is much smaller. Orders of magnitude smaller. They play the exact same games, the only difference is resolution and geometry. The design of the games is the same. Even the gamepads are the same!
 
Anything older than PS2/GC/XBOX/DC I consider retro, but that’s probably because that’s what I grew up on.

It’s still hard for me to consider stuff that looks like this as “Retro”
 

coffinbirth

Member
retro=/=vintage

I just want people to use the goddamned word correctly.

Retro means to recreate or imitate something that is old. Vintage means it's ACTUALLY old.
 

lucius

Member
Wii no, I still play original wii on my TV and some games feel almost as good as my current Switch games . I tracked down a great shape Wavebird for it , it is funny though some people see the wii and are suprised I still play it so maybe it is retro to others already.
 

Edder1

Member
Imo everything PS2 and older is retro because those games have aged really poorly in both visual, technical and gameplay department. PS3/360 are fine and will probably will be for a while until standards are raised further and games from that era start to look and feel archaic.
 
Last edited:

Sub_Level

wants to fuck an Asian grill.
Absolutely not. Hard 20 year limit for me on what is retro. PS2 first year of games is retro.
 

NahaNago

Member
It feels like they should be retro since folks were considering snes and nes games retro during the time of ps3.

It is more a matter of like the technology of graphics( makes sense in my head but not when typed out). ps3 games in this day and age would simply be low budget games right now whereas a nes or snes game is a choice made by developers(budget could be a reason for that choice though lol).
 

Wildebeest

Member
Google image search tells me that the "retro" means that fake 80s aesthetic with purple and blue vector graphics and a rising sun. Retro is a fashion for now that you know when you see it, rather than anything absolute.
 
Top Bottom