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”.
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.
I’m not sure that means much. Many really old games hold up from like the SNES or PS2.
It’s not about holding up, it’s about playing pretty much the same, while mostly just looking prettier.
While lines are never quite so clear cut, from SNES to N64/PS1 we unlocked a whole variety of 3D games, and by PS3/XB360 we added open-world games, immersive sims and console MMOs to our repertoire. But what new horizons were unlocked by technological advancements since? Only battle royales come to mind.
Surely today’s games are larger, more beautiful and have embraced QoL aspects that we discovered along the way. But today’s games don’t feel as markedly different as any previous leaps.
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
