What is 'Retro?'

[KenboCalrissian]

In the July 28th PoTD, there seemed to be varying opinions on the definition of 'retro.' This mostly stemmed from disappointment that Takamaru would not be 'the retro rep' of Smash 4, and many rejected the view that Pac-Man could be that rep.

You see, to me Pac-Man isn't a retro. He still gets games, he still makes cameos, he's still widely (the most) known, and he's even got a freaking television show on right now. There's a vast difference between him and the Ice Climbers or Game and Watch.

So, what makes a character retro? What makes them NOT retro? Does appearing in current games/shows/whatever invalidate a character's status as retro? Is 'retro' status granted by appearing before a set date, or by age, or by medium they appeared in? When does a character become retro?

What do you think?

 

[Spennicus]

I think Pac-Man as a character is not retro, because as is stated there, he is still a very significant name in our pop culture that has changed and evolved over the years. I think one could even say the same about Mario, Link, Samus, all of them. But the original game is the definition of retro, and I think that's what really matters.

 

[Sucumbio]

Retro is almost synonymous with Classic, but more about the look of something.The nes is Classic. Characters that appear in current day games that originally aired on the nes are therefore, classic. They can -look- retro, in that their graphics are copies of the original Classic versions. But they are not retro themselves, unless they have this quality. So basically for something to be purely retro, it'd not only have to be old (as in 20+ years) but it'd have to look as the original also.

So, Little Mac is a Classic character, but his look is not retro. Pac-man is a classic character, but his look is not retro.

 

[KenboCalrissian]

I think Pac-Man as a character is not retro, because as is stated there, he is still a very significant name in our pop culture that has changed and evolved over the years. I think one could even say the same about Mario, Link, Samus, all of them. But the original game is the definition of retro, and I think that's what really matters.

That's a fair point for the character as a whole. What does this mean for the original versions? Is the original Super Mario Bros. still retro, or is its retro status "revoked" because there are newer Mario games? Do you think there's room enough for distinction between individual games and the franchise as a whole? Or, is something only retro if it remains in the past, and only gets the occasional nod in modern mediums (i.e. Mr. Game & Watch has not produced anything new for ages, but his games were re-released on GBC and he still appears in Smash Bros.)?

Retro is almost synonymous with Classic, but more about the look of something.The nes is Classic. Characters that appear in current day games that originally aired on the nes are therefore, classic. They can -look- retro, in that their graphics are copies of the original Classic versions. But they are not retro themselves, unless they have this quality. So basically for something to be purely retro, it'd not only have to be old (as in 20+ years) but it'd have to look as the original also.

So, Little Mac is a Classic character, but his look is not retro. Pac-man is a classic character, but his look is not retro.

There's a slue of indie games out there that are retro-inspired that carry these qualities, minus the age requirement. So, what would you call Shovel Knight? It just came out this year, but for all intents and purposes, it looks, feels, and sounds like a NES game. It's too recent to be retro, but it looks too old to be modern. I guess it's just a faithful recreation, but would it ever be eligible for retro status?

 

[Sucumbio]

There's a slue of indie games out there that are retro-inspired that carry these qualities, minus the age requirement. So, what would you call Shovel Knight? It just came out this year, but for all intents and purposes, it looks, feels, and sounds like a NES game. It's too recent to be retro, but it looks too old to be modern. I guess it's just a faithful recreation, but would it ever be eligible for retro status?

Well, again "retro" is more about style, so in this case, I would say anything that plays like an old NES game would be in itself retro style. Style. Now, to just call it "retro" may be misleading to some, so I can understand if there's confusion, but to me saying something is "retro" really just means it's old-fashioned. There's all kinds of games out on DLC that's similar to old NES games. Platformers, mostly, they're all pretty much clones of Super Mario Bros. just with better graphics. Does that make them retro? Not necessarily, because of the better graphics. But if a game designer intentionally creates a game that looks and sounds 8-bit, then yeah, that's totally retro.

 

[KenboCalrissian]

Right, I find myself going back and forth on that. I was going to use an example of someone today painting a Byzantine-era styled painting. It's certainly not Modern, despite it being created in Modern times, but can it be called Byzantine since it's from the wrong era? I'm not an art major, so I don't know the answer to that.

Where does PS1 and N64 fall, then? I like to think the primitive 3D games are starting to become retro, but it's hard to lump them into the same category as NES and earlier. Likewise, I'm sure there are gamers out there who don't even consider NES retro, and the real retro era was Pong through Atari, or even narrower than that.

 

[Sucumbio]

It's hard to judge 3d I think. Compare tekken 1 to tekken 3. Leaps apart but you wouldn't call 1 retro they're on the same system. But... Compare to tekken 7 and sure 1 looks totally retro. Smash 64 looks retro compared to smash for wiiU. It's subjective to a point also. To me Atari is as retro to me as nes or even snes and the generations following like psx 64 etc. Are the relevant modern games. Carts vs disc for example.

 

[Sparklepower]

I think Pac-Man as a character is not retro, because as is stated there, he is still a very significant name in our pop culture that has changed and evolved over the years. I think one could even say the same about Mario, Link, Samus, all of them. But the original game is the definition of retro, and I think that's what really matters.

I don't quite understand this. Pac-Man hasn't had a serious new title since like... Pac-Man World 3? That was 10 years ago. The only way Pac-Man exists in our pop culture today is through multiple releases of the 'classic' arcade game. I think most people don't even know Pac-Man outside of his original arcade games, so how could you say that Pac-Man is a significant figure in our pop culture and not retro but the game isn't when Pac-Man was never really well known outside of those original games to begin with (or at the very least, certainly isn't today)?

I would definitely consider Pac-Man retro as a character. What I would more disagree with is the assumption that we're going to have one 'retro' character. This is silly, because we know full well that there could be multiple, or none. I don't even see how we could view past releases as having a trend of introducing a single 'retro' character. In melee I would consider both Ice Climbers and Game & Watch retro, while in Brawl I would consider both Pit (at the time since Uprising had yet to be released) and R.O.B. as retro characters.

 

[KenboCalrissian]

Part of the 'Pac-man is not retro' argument stems from the fact that he currently has a TV show on the air.

More recent than Pac World 3 though is Pac-Man Championship Edition DX in 2007. This is an interesting case because it falls into a grey area... we have a "new" game that's pretty much a rehash of the original, but with enough changes and graphical upgrades that it genuinely feels like a new experience. If we're granting exceptions to cameos or re-releases, something like Pac-Man Championship would really push the boundaries on what we're willing to absolve before saying "X is no longer retro."

Personally, I feel like "retro" just isn't a strong enough classification, given that the definition is so nebulous. I think we're reaching a point where video games need to start adapting periods or movements, much like what's given to the field of classic art. Just like there are distinctions between 'Byzantine,' 'Classical,' 'Rennaisance,' 'Modern,' etc., the vast library of games we have today could be broken down similarly based on eras, each represented by their own unique blend of graphics, sound, and gameplay.

 

[Booster]

Retro is a first party game company that Nintendo owns that has employees from the original rareware and a few new people while not as awesome are still capable developers, able to breathe life back into what would be dead franchises if it wasn't for them.

As for videogames, PS2 or older, with SNES or older being Super Retro.

 

[Sucumbio]

Part of the 'Pac-man is not retro' argument stems from the fact that he currently has a TV show on the air.

More recent than Pac World 3 though is Pac-Man Championship Edition DX in 2007. This is an interesting case because it falls into a grey area... we have a "new" game that's pretty much a rehash of the original, but with enough changes and graphical upgrades that it genuinely feels like a new experience. If we're granting exceptions to cameos or re-releases, something like Pac-Man Championship would really push the boundaries on what we're willing to absolve before saying "X is no longer retro."

Personally, I feel like "retro" just isn't a strong enough classification, given that the definition is so nebulous. I think we're reaching a point where video games need to start adapting periods or movements, much like what's given to the field of classic art. Just like there are distinctions between 'Byzantine,' 'Classical,' 'Rennaisance,' 'Modern,' etc., the vast library of games we have today could be broken down similarly based on eras, each represented by their own unique blend of graphics, sound, and gameplay.

Interesting. I suppose we do actually categorize video game systems in generations. But honestly I believe a Pac man survival horror game would indeed not be retro for instance. He could look retro or perhaps the game design could...

 

[Desu_Maiden]

Anything that's older than the Gamecube, Xbox and PS2 generation is considered retro in my books.

 

[Desu_Maiden]

Anything before the Gamecube, PS2 and XBox generation would be considered retro. So the N64, PSOne and Dreamcast would be considered retro, in my opinion.

 

[Pachinkosam]

. So the N64, PSOne and Dreamcast would be considered retro, in my opinion.

They are retro got to be 10 years or older to be called retro.

 

[BindingBlade]

What counts as "retro" to me is any character from a series that hasn't appeared in the current or past generation. For example, I now consider Captain Falcon a retro character, and three years ago would've done the same to Olimar and Pit.

 

[Twewy]

Anything before the Gamecube, PS2 and XBox generation would be considered retro. So the N64, PSOne and Dreamcast would be considered retro, in my opinion.

The Dreamcast is in the same generation as the PS2, Xbox, and Gamecube, though.

 

[KenboCalrissian]

So there's definitely some different opinions on where the cutoff is, which is what I thought. Here's a quick rundown of what I'm noticing:

By Age
Must be at least X years old. This gives later generations a chance to become retro, i.e. for a lot of people I think this means N64/PS1/Saturn is either already retro or really close. May or may not be based on most recent appearance (i.e., Pac Man isn't retro because he's been seeing action today, so for all intents and purposes his "retro age" is 0 years since last appearance.)

By Era
A static time period that does not adjust for future generations. Like saying "Anything made before 19XX is retro, and nothing made after that ever can be." However, that barrier is likely subjective to the person.

By Medium
This is like saying "Anything with more than X bits/ X dimensions is not retro." For a lot of people, this probably stops at either SNES or NES, but I'm sure there are some who would set it further back to pre-Atari days. This may or may not allow newer games which have worked hard to emulate a retro experience, such as Shovel Knight.

As for me, I feel like "retro" is really a blanket statement that covers a wide range of flavors. I think I fall under the "by medium" camp, but in my mind there are lots of little distinctions. To me, Super Mario 64 is retro, but it's a different kind of retro than Super Mario Bros. 2. I'm even willing to call Shovel Knight, Rogue Legacy, etc. "neo-retro," which I feel still falls under the retro umbrella. I think there's room for sub-classifications that we haven't named yet. (I guess I've already said that in a previous post, but I think this explanation is a little more refined than that one)