So, are we calling it retro now or what?
Okay so...I'm not dead. Yay for living!! I've just been so wrapped up in my life lately that I didn't have much time to blog. 2016 turned out to be an eventful year for me. I feel rejuvenated and ready to write again.
This post is to highlight the great retro debate. You know, that awkward conversation where we gamers try and decide amongst ourselves which consoles are considered retro and which are not. If done correctly, it can spur some seriously good debate. If done incorrectly, well, it can turn into the equivalent of hitting someone with a red/blue shell or dropping an UNO draw four card on them. Simply, it can be a source of tension. Warning: this will be a LONG post.
For most people, some systems and concepts are easily defined as retro. For example, a lot of people consider the original Nintendo Entertainment System/Famicom retro. I mean, the NES made its initial appearance way back in 1983. That's nearly 34 years ago and coincidentally, it's even older than I am. It uses an 8-bit processor, cartridges, and many of the accessories simply look dated. They do hold up very well, though. That's a testament to their durability and overall feel, in my humble opinion. The NES is a part of the third generation of video games which is also known as the 8-bit era.
To put that into clearer perspective, there were two generations that preceded and overlapped the 8-bit era. The first generation of video game consoles began in 1972 with the Magnavox Odyssey. That generation lasted until 1980 and was followed by the second generation which overlapped the first beginning in 1976 with the Fairchild Channel F and Radofin Electronics' 1292 Advanced Programmable Video System and lasted until the discontinuation of the Atari 2600 on January 1, 1992 . The third generation began in 1983 and marked the end of the North American video game crash. The end of the third generation video games came as 8-bit consoles became obsolete in graphics and processing power compared to 16-bit consoles. It came to an official end in 2003. Still a bit confused since the generations overlapped? No problem.
There are quite a number of distinguishing characteristics of the first generation that include:
Okay, now for the second generation:
And that brings us back around to the third generation in which my beloved NES resides:
Alright, so I just gave you guys a lot of information to work with. Let's let that digest for a moment.
So knowing what we know about those particular generations, can we comfortably call those consoles and games retro? Maybe, but it depends on who you ask. Like I stated earlier, the third generation of video game consoles ended in 2003. If we want to be technical and include all consoles released during that time, it would take us up to the GameCube, Playstation 2 and Xbox even though those consoles would be a part of the sixth generation or the 128-bit era.
Gets murky right there, huh? Remember, the generations tend to overlap.
So how can we determine what's retro and what's not? Do you base it on overall age or processing power? Or do you simply base it on what just looks retro? Do you create subcategories like retro vs classic vs vintage, etc.?
I personally use the rule of 20 (my rule). If it's been at least 20 years since the initial release, I'm going to call it retro. That's probably oversimplifying things, but I'm comfortable with it. Again, that's my preference and not a hard rule. Let's face it; the year 2020 will mark 30 years since 1990. Now if THAT doesn't make your head spin, I don't know what will. So yes, I call the first Playstation retro. I've run into people who are willing to consider the N64 retro but not the Playstation. Two sides of the same coin if you ask me.
And yet even with my own rule, I tend to still sub-categorize things. That's the beauty of this particular debate. You could break it down any number of ways and no one way would technically be wrong. Even though I presented a lot of hard facts, it still boils down to personal preference.
Since I've been gone for awhile, I had to come back with a bang. I hope this post gets the gears turning and sparks some debate either here, Twitter, or within your circle of friends. Let me know what you think.
Game on, my friends.
To put that into clearer perspective, there were two generations that preceded and overlapped the 8-bit era. The first generation of video game consoles began in 1972 with the Magnavox Odyssey. That generation lasted until 1980 and was followed by the second generation which overlapped the first beginning in 1976 with the Fairchild Channel F and Radofin Electronics' 1292 Advanced Programmable Video System and lasted until the discontinuation of the Atari 2600 on January 1, 1992 . The third generation began in 1983 and marked the end of the North American video game crash. The end of the third generation video games came as 8-bit consoles became obsolete in graphics and processing power compared to 16-bit consoles. It came to an official end in 2003. Still a bit confused since the generations overlapped? No problem.
There are quite a number of distinguishing characteristics of the first generation that include:
- Discrete transistor based digital game logic
- Games were native components of consoles instead of external or removable media
- Entire game playfield occupied only one screen
- Players and objects consisted of basic lines, dots, or blocks
- Color graphics were basic
- Either single channel or no audio
- Lacked features of second gen consoles like microprocessor logic, ROM cartridges, flip screen playfields, sprite based and multi-color graphics
Think Pong
Okay, now for the second generation:
- Microprocessor game logic
- AI simulation of computer based opponents which allowed for single player gaming
- ROM cartridges that stored games and allowed any number of different games to be played on one console
- Game playfields were able to span multiple flip screen areas
- Blocky and simplistic looking sprites with a screen resolution of around 160 x 192 pixels
- Basic color graphics which were generally between 2-color (1 bit) and 16-color (4 bit)
- Up to three channel audio
- Lacked features of third gen consoles like scrolling tile based playfields
Pac-Man on the Atari 2600
And that brings us back around to the third generation in which my beloved NES resides:
- D-pad game controllers
- Screen modes with resolutions up to 256 x 240 or 320 x 200
- 25-32 colors on screen from a palette of 53-256 colors
- Tile based playfields with smooth multi-directional hardware scrolling
- Advanced hardware scrolling that included multi-directional, diagonal, and line scrolling
- 64-100 sprites on screen, each with 4-16 colors and 8 x 8 to 16 x 16 pixel sizes
- Up to five channel (primarily square wave) mono PSG audio
Die, Goomba! Super Mario Bros.
Alright, so I just gave you guys a lot of information to work with. Let's let that digest for a moment.
So knowing what we know about those particular generations, can we comfortably call those consoles and games retro? Maybe, but it depends on who you ask. Like I stated earlier, the third generation of video game consoles ended in 2003. If we want to be technical and include all consoles released during that time, it would take us up to the GameCube, Playstation 2 and Xbox even though those consoles would be a part of the sixth generation or the 128-bit era.
Gets murky right there, huh? Remember, the generations tend to overlap.
So how can we determine what's retro and what's not? Do you base it on overall age or processing power? Or do you simply base it on what just looks retro? Do you create subcategories like retro vs classic vs vintage, etc.?
I personally use the rule of 20 (my rule). If it's been at least 20 years since the initial release, I'm going to call it retro. That's probably oversimplifying things, but I'm comfortable with it. Again, that's my preference and not a hard rule. Let's face it; the year 2020 will mark 30 years since 1990. Now if THAT doesn't make your head spin, I don't know what will. So yes, I call the first Playstation retro. I've run into people who are willing to consider the N64 retro but not the Playstation. Two sides of the same coin if you ask me.
And yet even with my own rule, I tend to still sub-categorize things. That's the beauty of this particular debate. You could break it down any number of ways and no one way would technically be wrong. Even though I presented a lot of hard facts, it still boils down to personal preference.
Since I've been gone for awhile, I had to come back with a bang. I hope this post gets the gears turning and sparks some debate either here, Twitter, or within your circle of friends. Let me know what you think.
Game on, my friends.
