- Registrado
- 10 de Feb, 2017
The idea of seventh-generation video game consoles (Xbox 360, PS3, Wii, etc.) being considered "retro" is very jarring to me personally. The general consensus of what defines "retro" in gaming are video games and systems that are 15 years or older, which fits the bill for the seventh-gen systems (Xbox 360 is 17 years old, both the PS3 and Wii are 16 years old; every major console of the generation came out in 2005 and 2006 respectively), but they are otherwise incredibly identical to the video game systems of current-gen.
It seemed every other console generation prior to the seventh had obvious distinctions between each other.
The only real differences you could make between the seventh generation and future console generations is how much the seventh gen tried out many gimmicks for their systems (most prominently the motion play stuff), and that they were the last systems that were able to output in component/composite, which made them inclusive for older televisions that didn't have HDMI capabilities. Both the eighth and ninth generations of gaming systems have used almost identical AMD processors, and they don't seem to be competing on anything other than who has more games worthy of playing. The only outlier is Nintendo, who continue to do their own thing for the most part, and continue to heavily rely on their first-party titles compared to the competition, although some prominent third-party franchises (Grand Theft Auto, Elder Scrolls, etc.) have made their first appearances on Nintendo systems with the Nintendo Switch.
So this leads to the question the title of the thread is asking: are seventh-generation consoles retro now? And for that matter, in the future, will current generation systems like the Xbox Series X/S and PS5 be considered retro like the SNES and Genesis are? And finally, most importantly, is there any point for any new gaming systems to come out? The past few generations of systems are just slight improvements to each other, and PC gaming seems to be the way to go for the most part these days.
It seemed every other console generation prior to the seventh had obvious distinctions between each other.
The first generation systems were extremely primitive, and either required overlays and manuals to tell what the heck you had to do in the game (Magnavox Odyssey) or were just one hundreds of Pong clones. The second generation systems (Fairchild Channel F, Atari 2600, Intellivision, etc.) were able to output actual color graphics, and it was much more obvious as to what you were suppose to do in the games made for those systems (though manuals were still a necessity for the most part), this is in addition to this generation marking the birth of third-party development, resulting in a glut of game saturating the market.
The third generation systems (NES, Master System, etc.) had far more complex games, and placed more of an emphasize on completing each of them rather than getting a high score. The fourth generation systems (SNES, Genesis, etc.) marked the start of the console wars where systems would compete with graphical and processing power; this made first-party development very important to the manufacturers of these consoles, with third-party development acting as support for each of these consoles. The fifth generation systems (PS1, Saturn, N64) placed an emphasis on FMV and 3D games, and the systems of this generation were competing based on how well they could output those things.
The sixth generation (Dreamcast, PS2, OG Xbox, GameCube) seemed like a transitory period for console gaming. In addition to much improved polycounts, which in turn lead to much better graphics, it's the generation that gave rise to many iconic video game franchises, and there were a emphasis on online play not dissimilar to the games of today. However, online play wasn't emphasized across every system (you needed a form of expansion modules to connect to the internet. In addition, the systems of this generation continued the 90s mindset of competing based on graphical and processing power (for instance, the most powerful console of the generation, the OG Xbox, was practically a glorified gaming PC in comparison to the others).
This leads us to the seventh generation, where the differences between each system became incredibly blurred, thanks to the advent of HD gaming (unless if you were Nintendo, which then you could go your own way and make millions of bucks off a spruced up GameCube that didn't have HDMI regardless of model). The processors of the systems were identical to one another (every system this generation had some sort of custom PowerPC CPU), and made any game made this generation look very similar in any platform it was ported to. In addition, online capabilities were emphasized more than ever, with these consoles allowing their users to use access apps based on websites like YouTube, Twitter, etc.; this isn't mentioning the rapid rise of online multiplayer in this generation, and the disastrous consequences they've had for gaming as a whole. As for third party development, they seemed to become more important than first-party games this generation, and as mentioned earlier, almost no third-party games look significantly different if you were to play it on a Xbox 360 or PS3.
The third generation systems (NES, Master System, etc.) had far more complex games, and placed more of an emphasize on completing each of them rather than getting a high score. The fourth generation systems (SNES, Genesis, etc.) marked the start of the console wars where systems would compete with graphical and processing power; this made first-party development very important to the manufacturers of these consoles, with third-party development acting as support for each of these consoles. The fifth generation systems (PS1, Saturn, N64) placed an emphasis on FMV and 3D games, and the systems of this generation were competing based on how well they could output those things.
The sixth generation (Dreamcast, PS2, OG Xbox, GameCube) seemed like a transitory period for console gaming. In addition to much improved polycounts, which in turn lead to much better graphics, it's the generation that gave rise to many iconic video game franchises, and there were a emphasis on online play not dissimilar to the games of today. However, online play wasn't emphasized across every system (you needed a form of expansion modules to connect to the internet. In addition, the systems of this generation continued the 90s mindset of competing based on graphical and processing power (for instance, the most powerful console of the generation, the OG Xbox, was practically a glorified gaming PC in comparison to the others).
This leads us to the seventh generation, where the differences between each system became incredibly blurred, thanks to the advent of HD gaming (unless if you were Nintendo, which then you could go your own way and make millions of bucks off a spruced up GameCube that didn't have HDMI regardless of model). The processors of the systems were identical to one another (every system this generation had some sort of custom PowerPC CPU), and made any game made this generation look very similar in any platform it was ported to. In addition, online capabilities were emphasized more than ever, with these consoles allowing their users to use access apps based on websites like YouTube, Twitter, etc.; this isn't mentioning the rapid rise of online multiplayer in this generation, and the disastrous consequences they've had for gaming as a whole. As for third party development, they seemed to become more important than first-party games this generation, and as mentioned earlier, almost no third-party games look significantly different if you were to play it on a Xbox 360 or PS3.
The only real differences you could make between the seventh generation and future console generations is how much the seventh gen tried out many gimmicks for their systems (most prominently the motion play stuff), and that they were the last systems that were able to output in component/composite, which made them inclusive for older televisions that didn't have HDMI capabilities. Both the eighth and ninth generations of gaming systems have used almost identical AMD processors, and they don't seem to be competing on anything other than who has more games worthy of playing. The only outlier is Nintendo, who continue to do their own thing for the most part, and continue to heavily rely on their first-party titles compared to the competition, although some prominent third-party franchises (Grand Theft Auto, Elder Scrolls, etc.) have made their first appearances on Nintendo systems with the Nintendo Switch.
So this leads to the question the title of the thread is asking: are seventh-generation consoles retro now? And for that matter, in the future, will current generation systems like the Xbox Series X/S and PS5 be considered retro like the SNES and Genesis are? And finally, most importantly, is there any point for any new gaming systems to come out? The past few generations of systems are just slight improvements to each other, and PC gaming seems to be the way to go for the most part these days.
Última edición:
