super_etecoon said:
Retro is 8 bit, 16 bit. It has a style that represents the origins of gaming. I don't really care one way or another. I was just using your post to highlight the difficulties that users will have with defining this forum. Trust me, I'm not the only one who would take exception to you referring to a 128 bit system (and the most technologically advanced graphics-wise of its generation) as a "retro" console. Obviously as time marches on a new nomenclature is needed to define eras of gaming. But hey, I suppose if everyone thinks that the DC, PlayStation, and Gamecube classify as retro gaming that that's what that word means now. We'll just have to figure out an industry standard word that refers to the original nes/snes/genesis/master system, among others, because they certainly don't fall into the same category. |
When I first thought of the idea of a retro forum, the dilemma of classification occurred to me as well. I mean, at first impulse, the word 'retro' conjures up memories of anything from Pong to Genesis etc. But then, when I thought about it again, I realized that for me what makes something feel retro isn't the 'bits' but rather the way the game plays. When we think about Atari 2600, aside from the bits or graphics, what do we think? I think simplicity. It's plug and play at its finest. The ability to buy one piece of hardware that is going to be stagnant for its life cycle, buying 100% complete games at retail, no DLC, no patches because they're fully tested before shipping... to ME, that's retro gaming. It's plug and play. And anything that's going to fit into that mold, fits into retro for me.
So, having said that, I see no issue with going all the way up to the DC/PS2 era. But I could also see it being pushed back to PS1/Saturn/N64 as well because that really is the last time we had consoles (for the most part) that were isolated from the internet.
Either way, it would be nice to have a dedicated forum to the plug and play era of gaming.
