|
|
Post by Ex on Sept 1, 2018 12:28:37 GMT -5
When HRG was founded last January, I decided that at least 10 years old was a proper definition for retro gaming compliance. However, that decision was totally subjective, obviously. So I am wondering what time frame HRG users think equates to retro? Is 10 years too long, too short, or just right? How old does a game need to be before you consider it a retro gaming experience? Should we keep the current status quo, or does HRG's retro decree need adjusting?
|
|
|
|
Post by toei on Sept 1, 2018 15:40:06 GMT -5
I still don't quite think of PS2 games as "retro", but that whole generation isn't really part of the discussion except when HD "remasters" come out, so it's good that it's included here. Anything less than 10 years is definitely not retro, though. I *sometimes* think opening up the discussion to neo-retro games might be interesting, if it were limited to a particular thread, but I wouldn't want that stuff taking over either.
|
|
|
|
Post by Xeogred on Sept 1, 2018 16:23:05 GMT -5
The current 10 year cutoff is good. Anything more would just further limit things as they are for now.
Personally, 10 years doesn't seem like much... especially this day and age now that they've stagnated with graphics or have longer console lifespans. I'm kind of with toei on the PS2/GC/Xbox era still not even feeling retro to me as well, but 9 times out of 10 with any friends IRL that's like ancient history to them. When I "think" retro, it's the NES>N64 era that instantly pops up in my head and what I generally think about. And obviously anything before that. For other stuff like movies, I tend to view the 80's as a nice cutoff. 90's anime definitely has a very unique flavor of its own but even some of that stuff doesn't make me think "old" when I look at them compared to the distinctive look of 70's or 80's anime, even if we don't see those art styles anymore... I don't know I just don't cast that judgement. It's hilarious when people realize Cowboy Bebop is 20 years old.
But yeah for now, I think any further limits on a niche' forum would just slow things down here.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ex on Sept 1, 2018 20:01:30 GMT -5
The poll wasn't necessarily suggesting we go even older. We could also go newer, if the community thought that would be better. I'm just taking input here.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Sept 1, 2018 21:20:00 GMT -5
I think ten is probably a good number if we're going on a numerical scale. I can't think of any changes to make, unless you want to get into short-lived series of systems where the generations moved pretty fast. I can't really think of a good example of that, though. Seven is too short in my mind, and anything longer limits discussion of games that, even if they're only from the generation prior, have still fallen outside of the public discourse for the most part.
The only other one that would make sense is to lengthen it a bit; say, the PS3 is off limits until the PS5 comes out, and so on. But then, that's really subjective, and depends on length of generations. I'd rather be able to talk about early PS3/360 games, personally.
|
|
|
|
Post by chibby on Sept 2, 2018 16:24:54 GMT -5
I think in the world of decor Retro doesn't actually refer to old things, it refers to things that are styled after old things. So like, a pair of flairs that harken to the 70's is retro, your actual bell bottoms from the 70's are either vintage or outdated depending on your perspective. Antique means over 100 years old (so we've got a ways to go before we start talking about antique video games).
I don't mind the 10 year cut off, though I will say, like others here have mentioned, that it leaves room open for discussion of some things that I wouldn't think of as Retro. Lost Odyssey for example, definitely meets the cut off requirement, but I don't think anyone here would think of that game as "retro". Same goes for Super Mario Galaxy (both of which I think I'm guilty of posting about here, tbh).
Here, even though no one asked me to, is why I would make the case for discussing sixth generation games. I never buy brand new systems, and there are a lot of folks like me who can't really afford them either. When I play 360, even though it is objectively a bit older, I think of it as playing a game, not making a conscious choice to play something older. When I play GameCube, even though it doesn't feel retro in the way that 32bit/64bit retro feels retro, it do feel like I'm choosing to get down with something a bit older. Similarly, if I'm listening to Modern Guilt or Morning Phase by Beck, I know that I am, objectively, listening to an older album that Colors, but I just feel like I'm listening to music. If I'm listening to Guero or Sea Change though, I feel transported to a different time. I don't feel as old school as Mellow Gold or Odelay, but still a different time than now. Does that make sense?
Also, have I mentioned what a big Beck fan I am? Maybe a better example would be films from The Matrix franchise, they feel very specific to the early turn of the century and I can't watch them without feeling some kind of nostalgia. It's not the same nostalgic feeling that I'd get from watching, say, the Terminator or T2, but I still think it counts. Okay, justification over.
Maybe rather than thinking about this in terms of years, we could think about it in terms of gaming generations. I see that some folks here don't want to call Gamecube and it's contemporaries, but given that we've had many discussions, even full on threads (I'm looking at you 2000-2009 shooters) that have talked on these topics heavily, that seems questionable to cut out this late in the game. What if instead of a specific timeline, we moved to games that came out on systems at least 2 generations old? This might lead to some odd birds, i.e. technically the last game that came out for PS2 was in 2014 (PES 2014), but it also released concurrently with the the PS3 version so maybe we rule out concurrent releases? That way we aren't waiting for January 1st to talk about Batman Arkham Asylum or Assassin's Creed 2 or something. It might also make it easier to avoid the "oh wait, is this kosher?" question we sometimes have to pose.
One potential downside to this method would be that gaming generations might grow ever shorter in the future leading to a situation where "2 generations old" wouldn't feel retro to ANYONE. But, given how companies are prone to pumping out sequels to their machines (Xbox One, Xbox One X, Xbox One S, Xbox One whatever the hell else, you get it) I think this might be stable for a while.
Ultimately it's arbitrary anyway, so I don't think we'll ever find a perfect system no matter what we do, but here's an idea anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Sept 2, 2018 21:46:31 GMT -5
At some point, I had thought that perhaps we could include games that "feel" retro, like a lot of modern indie games. However, I suspect it would be very tough to draw a dividing line on those titles, and which are okay to discuss and which aren't. I'm gonna let y'all know, I'd probably be talking non-stop about The Messenger right now if it were allowed.  Another interesting case is when you get new games for old systems. Pier Solar comes to mind. The systems are retro, but the games aren't, so do you let those in? As others have already said, I don't think there's anything perfect we can do, but I definitely don't want to open the floodgates. I appreciate that the forum forces me to keep things to actual retro titles. |
|
|
|
Post by Ex on Sept 2, 2018 22:09:50 GMT -5
Cutting things off by what "generation" they are from would be incredibly more complicated than simply cutting things off by the year they released. For example, what about cross releases? There are fringe cases every time a new generation starts, where games are released for both the older and newer generation of the same platform. It'd be silly to say that Super Dibble Splat on Xbox One is not retro, but Super Dibble Splat on Xbox 360 is, despite both having the same release date. And then there's the situation Sarge described where someone might release a new game on an ancient platform. That doesn't suddenly make that game "retro" in the sense that this forum is about. And so on.
I know there are members here who enjoy new games that are designed to look and play like classic games. The Messenger is a recent example. But new games designed to look and feel retro are still new games. They will already be discussed on NeoGAF or Talking Time or GameFAQs' forums, etc. HRG is about generating discussions on, and encouraging people to play, legitimately retro games.
As for the meaning of "retro", that is touched on in this forum's FAQ:
Calling an old game "retro" is a misnomer isn't it?
Technically speaking, yes. A legitimately old video game isn't "retro" in and of itself. Rather the act of playing an old game is a "retro" activity. As a matter of convenience, HRG uses the terms "retro gaming" and "retro video game" entirely colloquially. The implication is either to reference a video game that is at least ten years old, or of playing a video game that is at least ten years old.
It looks like most folks are happy with the 10 year setup. That's good, nothing needs to be changed.
|
|
|
|
Post by anayo on Sept 3, 2018 6:01:45 GMT -5
The ten year cutoff is fine.
Re-releases (and even remasters) of things released before the cutoff seem to be an exception, even if the rerelease is after the cutoff. For example, that time I recommended Chibby to try out the 3DS version of Zelda: Ocarina of Time. Wasn't there a discussion on here about the Switch version of Megaman Legacy at one point? (Correct me if I'm getting mixed up with a topic from RB).
The only other weird exception is a few topics where I've complained about how modern games don't really do it for me anymore, but I think I phrased the whole thing in really generic terms without mentioning any specific titles. Besides, I think that's consistent with the spirit of HRG in a weird kind of way.
I had wondered about certain modern indie games, as Sarge, Toei, and Chibby had propounded. But it looks like we're not doing that. That's OK, though, if I really want to discuss that stuff I can just do it on Racketboy. Keeping the ten year rule gives this place a certain integrity I'm reluctant to compromise.
|
|
|
|
Post by Xeogred on Sept 3, 2018 7:49:17 GMT -5
Re-releases (and even remasters) of things released before the cutoff seem to be an exception, even if the rerelease is after the cutoff. For example, that time I recommended Chibby to try out the 3DS version of Zelda: Ocarina of Time. Wasn't there a discussion on here about the Switch version of Megaman Legacy at one point? (Correct me if I'm getting mixed up with a topic from RB). Even I talked about OoT 3DS a few months back... since it was just like talking about the original. Same with REmake and its PS4 version.
I don't think Ex and Sarge want newly released remakes, which is understandable. Like talking about the Resident Evil 2 remake coming out next year here would be very out of place, since it's looking to be a totally new and different game from the ground up. Now if it were just another HD remaster or port, like the Onimusha Warlords one coming next January now, I'd wager those are totally cool to talk about here. Since like the OoT 3DS / REmake cases, you're fundamentally talking about an older title still underneath. And I think it can be cool to hear what new features some remasters might provide along with classics having more accessibility on new platforms. Heck, the Metal Gear Solid HD Collection came out in 2011 and that's another good case... avoiding talking about those versions or how it includes the MSX originals would be silly! And yes, it was me who was playing the new Mega Man X Legacy collections and we definitely talked about that in depth here and there.
Vanilla graphical HD remasters/ports/collections = okay. Total overhaul modernized remakes = probably not okay, unless they are beyond the 10 year mark like REmake (GCN 2002) or Metroid Zero Mission (GBA 2004).
That's my 2c at least.
|
|
