Page 2 of 2

Posted: Mon Jul 30, 2007 7:05 am
by Opa-Opa
I think we need to define what "retro" means before deciding what is "retro".

As far as I can tell the rest of the world i.e to those people who have no interest in video games at all, retro means anything from the early to late '70s. Brown Ford Capris, flowery wall paper and bell bottom flares.
I don't know what most of you were playing in the 70's but I know for a fact it wasn't the ZX Spectrum or the CBM64....

Gamers have taken the word "retro" and used it to decribe an older machine they have memorys of playing when younger. As the world moves forward some peoples first experiance of video gaming is the Megadrive or the Amiga, in some case's (on this very forum) the first machine people had were PS1's and Saturns ( poor sods ;) ) so to them the word retro means just that, a PS1...

To me Retro means any machine older than a PS2/XBOX at the moment, but as time moves foward and the PS4 and XBOX 720 are released then this invisible line moves along and then starts to included the PS2 and XBOX... But that wont be for a long time yet...

Posted: Mon Jul 30, 2007 7:15 am
by cyclone5uk
Everyone has their own definition, usually based on their age and the systems they played growing up.

Being born in 1982, retro gaming for me concerns the NES (8-bit) through to the NEOGEO (24-bit). I don’t personally consider the likes of the Saturn, PS1 or N64 retro, but I don’t mind seeing them featured in the magazine, in the same way I don’t mind seeing stuff about Spectrums and Commodores.

Posted: Mon Jul 30, 2007 7:25 am
by GarryG
So do you think this sliding scale of ‘retro’ fits solely to the machines or to the style of game-play as well?
Do you see a time where all first Person Shooter type games on the latest wave of consoles will be seen as retro games based on content rather than on platform!?

There are a lot of games on the PS1 that I wouldn’t necessarily call retro-type-games, are you saying they are retro-by-default because they are on a system you class as retro?

The Dreamcast is more-or-less the same generation hardware as the PS2, but this seems to be getting classed as a retro console, even although it has a large amount of games that also apeared on the PS2. So you can't say the more or less identical Dreamcast version of a game is retro and the PS2 version is curent gen!
Has shenemu got retro gameplay?

Posted: Mon Jul 30, 2007 7:37 am
by cyclone5uk
Yeah it's tricky - I mean Castlevania: Symphony of the Night is like a 2D 16-bit platformer that happens to use PS1 hardware for improved graphics and sound which wouldn’t have been achievable on an older system.

However it still plays like its predecessors, so does it count as retro (even though its on the PS1)?

I think the answer is down to personal preference – there’s no universal right or wrong answer.

Posted: Mon Jul 30, 2007 8:34 am
by Antiriad2097
GarryG wrote:Has shenemu got retro gameplay?
No. It doesn't have any gameplay ;)

Posted: Mon Jul 30, 2007 8:39 am
by Opa-Opa
Antiriad2097 wrote:
GarryG wrote:Has shenemu got retro gameplay?
No. It doesn't have any gameplay ;)
Untill you get to the arcade and can play those SEGA classics. :)

Posted: Mon Jul 30, 2007 8:40 am
by seanmcmanus
> So are you not interested in new games in the retro style then?

I'm interested, but probably not enough to buy a magazine for that. I have a Playstation 2 I only ever use for parties and a Nintendo DS I use a lot. I get my Nintendo news online.

> How about new games for old systems?

Yes, that's interesting to me when it's 8-bit. I'm pleased to see there's much more homebrew coverage in the mag now.

> Would you consider the proposed feature on Dreamcast SHMUPS too modern?

Yes, I'm not interested in the Dreamcast.

> I think what people need to do with Retro Gamer... is try to avoid knee-jerk reactions regarding the magazine's content, in terms of 'era'. The amount of x-bit content varies month-to-month...

Sure. I had a run of a few issues that weren't really my kind of thing, though and did get around to wondering if I should cancel the sub and just buy the mag when there's something I do really want to read. I'm sticking with it for now because recent issues have been more interesting for me again. I know everyone's taste is different and you have to cater for everyone. But I'm not actually buying a magazine for everyone, and without a good wodge of arcade and 8-bit stuff, it's not really my thing.

Posted: Mon Jul 30, 2007 11:52 am
by StickHead
Do we really need to define what retro is and isn't? I think that as gaming matures this line becomes more and more blurry.

When I listen to The Beatles or The Band, I don't say I'm listening to 'Retro Music'. Similarly, when watching Star Wars or Rear Window I'm not watching 'Retro Cinema'.

A good game will always be a good game, just as good cinema and music stay so, and I don't think there's any need to draw a bit fat line and say, "Anything under here is Retro!" After all, said line would constantly move anyhow.

I think it would be more productive to classify gaming's eras, which we do at the moment; 8-bit, 16-bit etc. But as our art-form of choice continues to mature, I would imagine that we will classify according to decade, much like music and cinema.