I feel like our terminology might be off a bit when discussing older games and as a result it’s muddying up some of the classifications and making the whole thing more confusing than it needs to be.
I’ve actually seen the “retro games” definition questioned a few times recently and I feel like the answer is right in front of us but that it’s probably too late in the game (pun intended) to change. Let’s visit the fashion industry for a quick and dirty example.
If you go into a clothing store and buy a brand new pair of bell bottom pants, you have just bought retro clothing. As retro is typically used as being reminiscent of an earlier time, brand new bell bottoms would be referred to as retro styled pants. However if you go into your closet and pull out bell bottom pants that you have had in your posession since the 70s, those are considered vintage. Vintage clothing are garments that originated in previous eras.
That example originally use Jnco jeans and the 90s because I actually have Jnco jeans from the 90s in my closet, but calling those vintage made me feel sad and old.
So let’s drag these terms and definitions back into the gaming industry and see if we can apply them in a more straightforward manner. Older games such as original Nintendo, Atari, and Sega consoles and all the games that those systems run now fall under the vintage classification. Newer games that try to mimic the style and/or gameplay of those generations of games could now be considered retro.
This could even apply to emulation handhelds, which could be retro devices that play vintage games.
But what happens to the definitions of newer games that try to replicate older games as they themselves get older? We just need to come up with a rule for relegating newer games to the vintage designation. A poor example of this could be classic cars, as the general rule of thumb for “classic” cars is 20-25 years old minimum. The reason that this is a poor example is due to the variance in that timeframe from place to place.
This also gets a bit uglier as console generations seem to be going longer and longer. 10 years or 2 console generations initially pops into my head as the cut off dates, which would put PS3, Xbox 360, Wii, and anything older on the vintage list along with all the games designed for those systems. However if console generations continue to stretch out as they have for the past few releases that would have to be revisited in the future.
I also kinda like the idea of visiting the wine industry’s use of vintage but applying it more to generations. “I prefer a nice 32 bit handheld vintage but I’ll rarely turn down a decent 16 bit vintage.” I feel like that would only really apply to consoles tho and would not translate well to PC gaming. Not to mention that different vintage definitions would muddy everything up which is the opposite of what we’re trying to attempt here. Generation is a perfectly cromulent designation in this instance, especially considering it’s already wide adoption.
And ultimately the crux of the issue is the adoption of terminology. I think the overly broad definition and usage of the retro designation is already firmly entrenched in gaming culture at this point. I don’t believe any attempt to change or clarify the terminology, no matter how well meaning, will ever be able to make any real headway and that the discussions about term definitions will continue ad infinitum.
And now that I’ve said my piece I can enjoy some vintage gaming while everyone else continues the retro debates.