The Ambiguous Definition of a “Retro Game”

What makes a retro game “retro”?

It’s a question that I’ve been pondering over for some time. When does a video game stop being considered “modern,” and slip into the vague description of “retro,” or “old-school?”

I’ve heard Halo: Combat Evolved be called a retro game. My first thought is “That’s crazy!”, as it really does not feel all that long ago since the original Halo was released.

Retro? Seriously?

But upon further consideration, maybe there is certain amount of years that a game must be out in order for it to be considered retro. Let’s say, 10 years?

This would mean that games released in 2000 and earlier are retro. In 2000, we had Tony Hawk’s Pro Skater 2, Jet Grind Radio, Legend of Zelda: Majora’s Mask, and the Playstation 2 launch, among other notable releases.

Maybe it’s just me, but honestly, I can’t see these games (or consoles) be considered retro. This is due to the fact that it felt all too recent that I was playing these games, and besides, the mechanics of these games are still prominent today.

So scratch that. Let’s move on to graphics, and see if it plays a role in a game’s retro status.

I can immediately recognize the Sonic the Hedgehog series on the Genesis as retro, but only on the basis of it being a 2D sidescroller with pixelated sprites. The question is now: Are 2D games the definition of retro?

This just screams "Retro!"

In that case, would Sonic the Hedgehog 4 be a retro game, even though it will soon be released? What about the other new releases of sidescrolling games on the Xbox Live Arcade and the Playstation Network?

Maybe there is not a concrete definition of a “retro game.” Since I’m having trouble defining “retro” in technical terms, perhaps it is a matter of personal preference. Everyone has their opinions; I don’t consider the original Halo retro, yet others do.

“Retro” is a term that is open for intrepretation. What is your understanding of a retro game?

Tags: sonic 2, Halo: Combat Evolved, retro games

Problem? Report this post

Diep Thai

September 21, 2010

In my opinion retro can be easily defined. In videogames the games from the 1970's to the start of 1990's. This definition won't likely change for a good 20 years, because something like Halo is already sufficiently good-looking for it to never look "ancient, outdated and clumsy" which is what makes 'retro' so charming.

Halo or Tony Hawk 2 can definitely be nostalgic bombs for certain players, but their design will never feel too old. Whereas looking at Pac-Man you can instantly tell that it was made in the Stone Age. 2D Sonic alone doesn't make a game retro. 3D CubeQuest polygons alone don't make a game retro. It's the era the game was made in and how every bit of design from the font of the pixeltext to the silly programming oversights that oozes "retro". This look and feel is consistently emulated by games like Scott Pilgrim vs The World and Geometry Wars and such, but because they are so new they can only be games with a retro style.

I think anyone who calls Halo retro has to be twelve. Literally :D

Report | Reply

5211_100857553261324_100000112393199_12455_5449490_n

Bryan Harper

Retro's a pretty simple definition for me: Any game that was produced before the third dimension was fully raped to fruition (circa PSX-era). I know a few "3D" games had existed before the PS3 hit the scene, but come on. They were not successful enough to completely change the industry standard.

As far as calling Sonic 4 retro, shifting to a more "practical" attitude, why not? It's based off a formula nearly what, 20 years old now? More? I'd consider Mega Man 9 and 10 to be retro.

Richard Moss

I lean towards an "at least 10 years old" definition. 3D was still new and unusual back then, and the mechanics were almost always traditional 2D gameplay shoe-horned into a 3D environment. If you actually go back and play the games from ten years ago you'll see that in many (most?) cases the mechanics and design are very outdated and get by on their charm (particularly with Dreamcast games).

But having said that, it is not a hard-and-fast definition for me. Some games from around 2000 do indeed feel too recent, while a handful of games from the early 2000s feel old. And now that some games are designed to look and feel like early 90s 2D games the definition gets even more ambiguous, because these games don't just put a modern spin on an old concept; sometimes they actually use parts of the old concept and make you deal with outdated mechanics.

For an example of how difficult it is to gauge what constitutes a retro game, just look at Retro Gamer Magazine -- it's constantly struggling to determine where to draw the line, and was met with mixed reactions when it featured Lara Croft on its cover.