StuOhQ said:
So it seems the biggest takeaway is that most don't consider last-gen systems to be "retro" yet. I can certainly understand that sentiment.
The big question is, then:
What evolving benchmark divides "modern" gaming from "retro" gaming?
|
There would be a few different factors to determine this. Some people would argue that something is retro as soon as it goes out of production, although, I would argue otherwise. The Dreamcast was a part of the same generation as the Playstation 2, Xbox and GameCube respectively. It was also discontinued during their lifespan. I would hardly call it a retro console during this time, because that would essentially be the same as calling the other consoles retro while they are still a part of their current generation with no current follow up console on the market.
When the Playstation 3, Xbox 360 and Wii were the main consoles on the market, this did not make the Playstation 2 retro. The Playstation 2 actually maintained more relevance than the Playstation 3 in the first year or so.
For something to be determined retro, a certain amount of time needs to have passed. Something that is not even half a decade old is certainly not retro. In my opinion the most recent retro consoles are the Sega Saturn, Playstation and Nintendo 64. They are all over 20 years old now (as I am typing this I am thinking HOLY SHIT THEY ARE OVER 20 YEARS OLD NOW). However, I do believe that solid arguments can be made in favour of labelling the Playstation 2, Xbox and GameCube as being retro consoles now. The Playstation 3, Xbox 360 and Wii are still much too modern to be considered retro. They are certainly not new, however, calling them retro would be an exaggeration.
Therefore, calling the Wii U a retro console is simply absurd. I do not mean to offend you. I sincerely hope that no offense is taken, as I aim to articulate a constructive point of view.
