How do you define a retro game?

[Chrisbasket]

I had this very interesting discussion today with a couple of friends, and we talked about all the games we currently play. Many modern titles were mentioned and a some older ones as well. When it came to the older ones one of them said he was in the mood for some retro gaming. So, he played Uncharted.

Now, I immediately objected (objection!!!). I mean, come on, when we say retro gaming we talk about things like Super NES games or older, right? Well, apparently wrong. He told me to put a line that strictly separated modern games from retro games. A clear rule. And I could not.

It was the first time ever that It hit me, we talk about retro gaming all the time and yet we have no clear definition about it. What is yours?

 

[Squigly]

Mine would be bit graphics and purely 2D. I'm not too strict on music and sounds though some others might be.

 

[Goldie]

Retro means an imitation of recent history, sort of like an homage, so technically old games aren't considered retro, but since it is a widely accepted term I guess it passes. That said, I'd cut it off at around ps2 era for now, personally, and after a few more years the cutoff might reach ps3 for me.

 

[Wiseman05]

Personally speaking, I always imagined that retro games were more along the lines of being several generations behind, or when the current generation of gamers predominately were too young to have played those games. So for now, anything from the PS2 era and before it could be defined as retro. Especially since a lot of those games can easily be emulated on computers you can buy at Wal-Mart now.

 

[digitalsatori]

I'm with OP - SNES is the cut-off for retro gaming. Pre-SNES (NES, Genesis, Neo-Geo, Atari etc.) is all 'retro'. SNES and newer up to the PS2/Xbox era is 'classic', the Xbox360/PS3 is 'modern', and the XboxOne/PS4 is 'next gen'.

This is totally a legitimate categorization, says some random guy on the internet.

 

[aboleth_lich]

Those seem like great points in time with which to divide the history of video games into clear eras, put I'm a bit hesitant to give those eras names like "classic, "modern," "next gen." To me, the term "classic" generally denotes a quality work that's sufficiently aged (how aged depends upon the specific medium), the term "retro" generally denotes any work that harkens back a few decades, the term "modern" generally refers to the present or the near-future, and the term "next gen" refers to the cutting-edge-of-the-cutting-edge currently in development. As time marches on, such terms will be seem a bit silly in retrospect if they are rigidly, statically fixed to specific immutable eras. History does a better job of marking its eras using a less temporally relative terms denoting the technological capabilities of the time: the "stone" age, the "iron" age, etc. Even the comic book industry's use of "gold," "silver," etc to denote its notable stages of development is preferable to terms like "classic," "modern," "retro," and "next-gen" in my opinion.

 

[aboleth_lich]

Retro means an imitation of recent history, sort of like an homage, so technically old games aren't considered retro, but since it is a widely accepted term I guess it passes.

The definition seems to be "retroactive" or "of or designating the style of an earlier time."

As such, a work that plays homage to the style of decades past, like Grindhouse to use a cinematic example, would definitely be retro.

However, although the above would be the most proper use: this definition also does leave itself open to what was once contemporary and modern when it was released becoming retro with the passage of time as people begin to enjoy it with an ever-growing sense of nostalgia. In the 1980s, it would be absolutely absurd to say that someone playing the NES was a retro-gamer or that someone watching Miami Vice was enjoying retro television--but now that's exactly what we would say about someone enjoying those works today! Perhaps that's technically not strictly the proper use of the term, but that usage has become so popular that it's essentially another definition--for better or worse, language is a fluid, ever-evolving beast.