• otp@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    I can understand the PS360 argument. It was probably the last generation where most games were actually playable off the disc without a bunch of patches.

    With how common DLC and stuff was becoming that generation, though, I feel like it’s sort of a soft boundary for retro. I can equally accept retro being anything before the PS360, or before/including that generation.

    I don’t look forward to the days where “retro gaming” refers to “any console with physical releases at all”.

    • TwilightVulpine@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      It doesn’t feel right to count that generation as retro, for reasons like GTA 5, which was initially released for those consoles, yet it’s still considered a current game, with no significant overhaul beyond graphical fidelity. It’s the greatest example of how games haven’t drastically evolved since then.

      Compared to the jump from SNES to N64 and PS1, or from PS1 to PS3, we haven’t had any major breakthrough, just moderate incremental improvement.

      • otp@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        I agree that it doesn’t feel right, but I can understand the justification, haha

        “Retro gaming” is a pretty broad description, anyways. There were probably people who didn’t want to include the 3D consoles, and even those who didn’t want to include cartridge-based consoles, haha