Topic: When does a game become "retro?"

So, here I am, having registered for the forums and trying to think of a topic to post about. I've been playing a lot of Team Fortress 2, how about a discussion thread for that? But then I realized - "This thing's nearly 20 years old! Which subforum does it go in? ... That's interesting on its own, actually!"
It's old enough to be considered technically retro at this point (Super Mario Bros was surely considered so in 2003, I'd imagine...) But on the other hand, I don't think a lot of people, including myself, would call TF2 retro. An especially strange circumstance as the 7th console generation as a whole has begun to be considered retro, and even games of similar age by the same developer achieve "retro" status, like Half-Life 2 and its episodes (I'd consider it to be retro, at least...), I can't help but find it an odd feeling to call Portal 1 retro... Despite the fact that it launched with Episode 2 on the Orange Box!
What do you think makes the distinction? The only thing I can think of with regards to TF2 and Portal vs. HL2 is cultural relevancy, but the original SMB games are still pretty relevant, culturally, and those are considered retro...

I use the “Game is old enough to vote” metric.

I remember way back when the N64 came out I already considered the NES "retro" and "old school" and Wario's Woods for NES was only 2 years old at that point. But I think I just thought about it as being "two Nintendos ago" instead of any real year amount.

With PC it's kind of weird because I'm not really sure what the big demarcations would be. What pixel shader when or directx version whichever one, I'm not well versed enough to know how that would go.

I think retro is anything distinctly of its time. It's a commonly identifiable look and feel that stands out as anachronistic with the present.

The older you get however, the further back "contemporary" seems to stretch.

@MaulRx like World of Warcraft

@walllable Like a lot of terminology in gaming (like AAA, AA, Indie) there’s no official definition of the term and so it’s all subjective semantics. As many opinions as minds.

Like ‘good’ art I’ll tell you when I see it. 😜

But in my eyes… as a rough guide everything from the 16-bit era and before is Retro. Beyond that it’s more complicated, 2D/ 3D is definitely a factor yet some PS1 titles like Jumping Flash I would consider retro but not others like Metal Gear Solid which released just 3 years later… whereas simpler handheld games that came after I might still call Retro. There’s little logical reason for that, just an instinct, for right or wrong.

Additionally I currently see it more as an era rather than a target that moves in sync with time… so for example, in three years I doubt I will suddenly consider MGS retro. But that’s not to say other games won’t fall into the bracket, they will, just not synchronised with the orbit of the sun.

(Basically I have no clue / no solid reasoning) lol

It's retro when we have to pay obscene prices for used games.

I really like the rule that a console that is two generations old is retro.
It's simple. It's quite clear.
And indeed, the games released on it are very easy to differentiate from the modern ones.
A game from 2 gen that is very close to modern standards is groundbreaking for the time.
It always work.

So, is GTA V retro? It is to me yep. I would say the PS3 version is defenitly retro. The PS5 version falls into the same category for me as a remaster from a PS3 game. A groundbreaking one.

And I'm pretty sure it will work for PS4 games when the PS6 will release. It won't obviously be as loud and clear as differentiating a PS2 game when the PS4 released. But it will be possible.

I guess it depends on your age but anything anything I'd play on a CRT (so basically anything pre-Xbox 360) feels retro to me. There's no clear divide but to me it feels like the rules and sensibilities of games from the tail-end of 7th generation consoles onwards haven't really changed too much.

Good point, PC is harder to define.

I like to think of any platform without native HDMI support as retro, even though that creates a weird situation where Wii fits the criteria, but 360 and PS3 do not (yes I know launch 360s didn't have HDMI, but the platform broadly does). That's not to say that PS3, 360, and pre-Switch handhelds aren't pretty much retro by this point, but I do think the analog video era is a specific clean break. 360/PS3/3DS/Vita can be argued to be retro, and I don't disagree, but they're a different flavor of retro.

@Try4ce That's exactly my feeling about console hardware. The moment I need a special adapter to get it properly working with whatever TV is in my living room, that console is retro. My PS2 and Wii became retro the day I bought a TV without analog video input.

@Try4ce Fair point.
Early PS3/360 games have a different flavor. It's like a "HD PS2 Pro" transition time. Time Crisis 4, Ridge Racer 7, Motorstorm, etcetera. It feels like developpers were still trying to figure out what HD could bring to video games and were mostly making games as they were on a PS2/Xbox, but in HD.
Actually, I think a lot of those early gen games play better through analogue, even more on a CRT. RR7 on a BVM at 720p is mind-blowing.

The whole digital/HDMI age did rise with the market of bigger screens too. So texts became smaller with years. And developpers felt more and more the need to fill backgrounds and textures with more details.
It's a big shift in how video games looked.

And gamers were expecting more and more open worlds. For better or worse.

Wii for me is definitely retro. It's a GameCube Pro. The best place for me to enjoy Wii games is on a CRT compatible with 480p. It's where it shines. Too many people played that console on LCDs and think its graphics were ugly. Spoiler: they're not when played on a CRT. Especially at 480p.
Super Mario Galaxy 1 and 2 look fine in its remasters. But they really shine and look correct on a CRT in my personnal opinion.

The best time to be retro was yesterday. The next best time is now

That's a good point. The original question was about games, not hardware, so I suppose those early games can still 'feel' retro without necessarily looking it.

@1040STF Regarding text size, I always feel like it's very comfy when games use far larger text than is necessary in modern games. Animal Crossing comes to mind. It may be anachronistic and unnecessary today, but it makes me happy for some reason.

@Try4ce I noticed the same. There's some warmth into that. Small text feels often cold.
But maybe it's about the fonts used too. You don't use the same kind of font if it's for small text or big. It's an esthetic thing.

@rdbaaa A very spiritual answer. I like it ha ha

@EventfulCitrus Yep, I never forgot it was about games. But games are very defined by their hardware up until PS3/PS4 where the line becomes thiner and thiner. On my side, I can still see it very clearly because I think there were some major game design enhancements between PS3, PS4 and even PS5 generations. But those are less obvious to the large audience. I still know some people who think game designs haven't evolved much since PS3 ... which I totally disagree with. 🙃
Anyway. Talking about early PS3 games was a way to circle back to the og question: games.

I remember around '99/2000, PC games magazines in the UK used to describe games released up to around '96 as ancient given how quickly the technology was advancing from sprites to polygons. So to me it tends to come down to some kind of shift in rendering technology like @EggmaniMN mentioned.

If path tracing became common in newer PC titles, suddenly a lot of titles from the last few years could start to feel retro more quickly than they do now and the distinction would be easier to see - though obviously not quite as drastically as that '90s period.

@Sloth-1999 With perspective, I think most people over-reacted to novelty in the 80's-90's. I mean, I did too: it was indeed super exciting to follow and every few months some screenshots of new games in the magazines felt like total wizardry. It was magical.
But I still remember to this day the video game shop employee that sold me Castlevania Symphony of the Night on PS1 the day of its release, asking me "Why are you buying that game? It's 16-bit..."
That trend of tech admiration and expectation created a lot of dispise against "old" games. Which stayed big until the indie scene became something - at least around me.

Today, I think people see things clearer now. We have a wider view of what video games are about. People know it's not just about the tech, it's about the game design. Though tech is still exciting.

I agree that Path Tracing is the next big thing to make games very different from another generation. It reminds me what I said to a friend like 10-15 years ago: the day the jeans are out of fashion is the day most pictures from the last 50 years of random people walking in the streets will feel suddenly incredibly dated
The day Path Tracing becomes the basic norm, yeah, most 3D games from before will feel very dated. And I'm pretty sure that day will happen, previous techniques becoming a retro style.

But I still see so many improvements in video games tech every year (we all do thanks to DF) that I can still see clear paterns around hardware generations.
That's why I keep coming back to the rule of "2 generations older is retro". It just works - at least for me.

Oh my god, tiny ui and text are an instant turn-off for me in modern games. It often feels overcomplicated, tiring and arduous.
If feel like there are too many developers that simply don’t pay enough attention what Nintendo is doing right and why they are so successful. Their games are still mostly easy to read and parse and frankly I think they should be copied more.

In regards to what is retro and what not, I also draw the line whether something was designed for CRTs or HDTVs. Obviously there are some cross-gen games on 360/PS3 that have a retro feel to it, I.e. Tomb Raider Legend, Anniversary and Underworld, whereas Tomb Raider 2013 is not at all a retro game in my opinion.

@1040STF I still feel it hasn't changed as much since then but maybe that's because all of that change happened over one generation? Those games you listed do feel old-school (maybe because they're arcade-y) whereas something like The Last of Us still feels quite modern design-wise despite being on the same console.