When is a console a Classic?

[+pboland]

I really haven't thought about this for about ten years. I guess a console is considered a classic depending on ones age. I thought it might be interesting to see what some of the users here consider classic.

 

Here's my take:

I started collecting in 1995. Back then I considered anything pre crash as classics. Today I think I would add to the pre crash the NES, SNES, NEO GEO, SMS, Sega Gen, 3DO, and Atari jag. Anything after that seems a little too new to me. What do you guys think?

[jaybird3rd]

Whether something is "classic" or not has nothing to do with how old it is. A game, old or new, has to be a groundbreaker in some unique or historically important way to be considered a "classic." I suppose a console's "classic status" is best determined by the percentage of the games in its library that can be considered "classics."

 

There was a list of "classic game" criteria that was offered on Retro Gaming Radio years ago, and I thought it was a good beginning. I'll see if I can find it in my archives and post a summary.

[raskar42]

a console becomes a classic when your brother breaks yours and you can't buy a new one at toys r us.

[The_Laird]

Anything up to the Dreamcast not made by Sony

[Christophero Sly]

I agree with jaybird. "Classic" refers to the enduring significance of something, not the length of its existence.

[CGQuarterly]

It's relative, and I would say that it primarily depends on your age. For me personally, whether or not something is classic depends largely on how much of a nostalgic feeling it gives me. For my website, "classic" goes up through 32-bit systems, but really I personally draw the line at 16-bit systems at the moment. Some people don't even consider the NES classic, and draw the line at the VCS. For them, the NES probably came out too late for them to think back nostalgically about it now. I get very nostalgic about the original Playstation, because we had some good times when I was going to college, but I was an adult already, so to me the system just doesn't feel that old, even though it came out about 15 years ago. But for someone who got a Playstation for their 13th birthday and is now in their late 20's, the PSX may feel "classic" to them. I think that for adults, our childhoods feel like they were so long ago that it was almost in a past life, whereas once you reach adulthood the time starts to fly by, so that to a 33-year-old like me, being 20 doesn't seem that long ago. But when I was 20, being 10 seemed a lot farther away. I guess that goes beyond the scope of this topic, but to me that has a lot to do with what feels "classic" and what doesn't.

 

That's my 2 cents, anyway.

 

Chris

[raskar42]

classic can also mean quintessential. or best known historically.

 

SMB is the classic platformer and Halo is the classic FPS. dosen't mean they're the first, but that they define the genre.

 

the Atari VCS is a classic early cartridge system while the Fairchild Channel f, might be too obscure to be considered a classic.

 

vintage does not mean classic

[jaybird3rd]

I think a lot of the confusion over the word "classic" arises because it's often used as a synonym for "old", which is indeed a relative term. To a teenage modern console fanboi, "old" might be anything that came out more than six months ago, but for someone in their mid-thirties, the Fairchild Channel F is "old." That isn't enough of a criteria for determining what is or is not truly a "classic"; if it were, we'd have to call every old game a "classic," and we know they don't all deserve that designation.

 

Here are the parameters that were suggested by Shane R. Monroe in the April 2002 episode of Retro Gaming Radio. This is a summary from a 40-minute segment, which I've edited for clarity:

 

1. Modern games or platforms that break new ground are "innovative" until they go out of production; when they can be evaluated in their proper historical context, they can then be called "classics." (I think the Nintendo DS would fall into this category; it's certainly innovative, but it's still being sold and supported by Nintendo, so it's a bit early to call it a "classic.")
   
2. An old game that changed the face of gaming, either by pioneering a new gaming technology or introducing a new gameplay paradigm, is a classic. Examples: Pac-Man, Donkey Kong, Space Invaders, Tetris.
   
3. Sequels or remakes can never be classics. Example: The original Street Fighter is a classic; "Super Street Fighter III Turbo Alpha Championship The Movie 37" is not. The only exceptions are follow-ups that are outstanding games in their own right which remained true to the originals while extending the genre in a significant way. Example: Ms. Pac-Man is a classic, even though it followed Pac-Man, because it was such a dramatic improvement upon the original.
   
4. Modern rehashes, which borrow the name of a classic game but bear little or no resemblance to the original, are not classics. Examples: The original Galaga was a classic, but "Galaga: Destination Earth" (one of the late-90s remakes from Hasbro for the PC) was not; the original Spy Hunter was a classic, but Spy Hunter for the PlayStation 2 was not.
   
5. Officially licensed conversions (or ports) of classic games are not classics in themselves, unless they accurately capture the full experience of the originals. Examples: Pac-Man on 2600 is not a classic, but Pac-Man on the NES is. Donkey Kong on the 2600 is not a classic, but Donkey Kong on the ColecoVision is. Mortal Kombat 2 on the SNES is not a classic because it was "sanitized" by Nintendo (no blood, no fatalities, etc).
   
6. Unlicensed or unauthorized knock-offs and clones can never be classics. Example: Puckman on the C64 may have been a great game, but it was an exact clone of Pac-Man, not a classic in its own right.
   
7. Original games that attain an unusual "cult status," either good or bad, can be considered classics. Examples: E.T. on the 2600, Grid Runner, and Night Trap.
   
8. Movie licensed titles can never be classics unless they meet the previous requirement. Example: Cloak & Dagger is a classic game despite its tie-in to the movie because of its unusual history.
   
9. A game does not have to sell well or be "brutally overfeatured" to be a classic (this last point was included, I think, as a response to elaborately complex fighting games).
   
10. A port of a game on a platform other than the original platform can be a classic if it significantly improves upon the original without radically changing the gameplay. Example: Prince of Persia originated on the Apple ][, and the Amiga port dramatically improved upon the audiovisuals while remaining true to the original gameplay, so both versions can be considered classics.
    
11. A gaming platform gets a classic ranking based on the ratio of classic games to "crap games" in its library. Example: the Atari 2600 would rank highly as a classic console, but the SNES would not (because the majority of its library was sequels, rehashes, and remakes).
    

I can think of things on this list that I'd probably disagree with, and some additional criteria I would add, but I think it's a useful starting point.

[Algus]

2 generations after they're done so PS1/N64 are classics now h'yuck yuck.

 

Seriously though

 

Whether something is "classic" or not has nothing to do with how old it is. A game, old or new, has to be a groundbreaker in some unique or historically important way to be considered a "classic." I suppose a console's "classic status" is best determined by the percentage of the games in its library that can be considered "classics."

 

Gotta agree with this. Heck, I'd argue that the PS2 has a lot of classic material on it and its technically still on the market. Kinda feel the same way about the Xbox and Gamecube. Though its still strange to think of anything after 2000 as classic. My main web hangout is GameFAQs. My account there is ten years old and a lot of the games that were mainstream popular titles then are classics now. Its a little strange to think of.

 

That list is pretty interesting jaybird

[+LS650]

In my province, cars are eligible for a "collector plate" after 25 years. That seems like a good rule of thumb to me...

[108 Stars]

Anything up to the Dreamcast not made by Sony

 

Especially what was made by Sony.

 

Seriously, the PlayStation definately is a classic for its many great games and for spreading video games beyond the children- and teenager-markets.

 

That said, every console with some merits is a classic. Even something as new as the original Xbox.

It really depends on whether the system had either great innovation or cool games. And the latter aspect pretty much applies for any somewhat known system. Only the no-names I would not call classic.

The MB Microvision did not have great games, but I consider it a classic for being the first handheld to feature exchangeable games.

[raskar42]

Awesome post jaybird.

 

I do have a few points of disagreement.

 

2.Sequels or remakes can never be classics. Example: The original Street Fighter is a classic; "Super Street Fighter III Turbo Alpha Championship The Movie 37" is not.

 

The original Street Fighter was boring and few people liked it or even know about it. Street Fighter 2 - (the sequel to street fighter) was a major player in the coin op and home console. it defined the one on one fighter and i defy anyone to say SF2 is not a classic.

 

The only exceptions are follow-ups that are outstanding games in their own right which remained true to the originals while extending the genre in a significant way. Example: Ms. Pac-Man is a classic, even though it followed Pac-Man, because it was such a dramatic improvement upon the original.

 

Here he seems to say 'A sequel can never be a classic unless it is a classic'

Also i want you to pay close attention to his example because....

 

 

6.Unlicensed or unauthorized knock-offs and clones can never be classics.

 

 

I may be wrong, but wasn't ms. pacman an unauthorized hack of pac-man? *coughcrazyotto* if namco hadn't authorized the game, would it today not be considered a classic? does a game have be compliant with copyright law to be a classic ?

 

11.A gaming platform gets a classic ranking based on the ratio of classic games to "crap games" in its library. Example: the Atari 2600 would rank highly as a classic console, but the SNES would not (because the majority of its library was sequels, rehashes, and remakes).

 

I don't know that anyone ever looked at the classic games:trash games ratio of the VCS compared to the SNES, but i seem to recall the number of knockoff/ remake/ licensed trash VCS games was pretty high.

 

I think the biggest disagreement i have is that you can scientifically or empirically define what games or consoles are classic and which one's aren't. Maybe there are degrees of classicalism we need to consider here. can one classic game be more classic than another classic game?

[jaybird3rd]

The original Street Fighter was boring and few people liked it or even know about it. Street Fighter 2 - (the sequel to street fighter) was a major player in the coin op and home console. it defined the one on one fighter and i defy anyone to say SF2 is not a classic.

I agree. To me, the situation with Street Fighter and Street Fighter II is analogous to Galaxian and Galaga: Galaga followed Galaxian, and there are certain similarities between the two, but Galaga was such an improvement that it deserves to be considered a classic.

 

 

Here he seems to say 'A sequel can never be a classic unless it is a classic'

That's actually one of the points that I would take issue with also: if a game is good enough to be a classic, it should be called a classic whether it's a sequel or not.

 

I think I understand his intention, though: he's trying to disqualify the sequels that were essentially the same game as the originals. Going back to Street Fighter, I'd say that many of the games in that series which followed Street Fighter II were just more of the same thing: re-skinned and with incremental improvements, but obviously attempting to milk the franchise. I'd say the same thing about most of the Madden Football games: do we really need to buy another copy of the exact same game, year after year, with updated stats and team rosters and slightly improved graphics? They used to release "team disks" for incremental updates of that kind.

 

 

I may be wrong, but wasn't ms. pacman an unauthorized hack of pac-man? *coughcrazyotto* if namco hadn't authorized the game, would it today not be considered a classic? does a game have be compliant with copyright law to be a classic ?

Good point. I'd have to think about that one a bit, but perhaps the two should be considered different versions of the same game, since Ms. Pac-Man essentially is Crazy Otto with proper Pac-Man graphics and Namco's copyright added onto it. A definite classic, regardless.

 

 

I think the biggest disagreement i have is that you can scientifically or empirically define what games or consoles are classic and which one's aren't. Maybe there are degrees of classicalism we need to consider here. can one classic game be more classic than another classic game?

It's all very informal, true enough, and there's certainly plenty of room for disagreement. I just think it's important to have some sort of criteria so that the word "classic" isn't thrown around so loosely, but is reserved for games that genuinely deserve the honor. Trying to decide if a game is "more classic" than another gets even more complicated, so I think a "yes or no" is sufficient: a game either is a classic, or it isn't.

 

That still gives you at least some ability to rank the various platforms according to their "classic status," since you can make a preliminary judgment about which games were classics and which weren't and then group them according to the platforms they were on. The 2600 had its share of stinkers, but I think it does rank higher than most in terms of the overall percentage of its games that can be considered classics.

[AtariLeaf]

I see/hear the terms "classic" and "vintage" used as interchangeable words although they mean very different things. Although classic can mean something very old, its not always the case. A classic can me something very modern but it usually refers to something that is of high quality or timeless or represents the best of something. Vintage on the other hand almost always refers to something that is old or from a certain era.

 

The Atari 2600 is both a vintage console and a classic console.

The Odyssey is just a vintage console.

The Playstation is a classic console but IMO, not old enough to be considered "vintage"

[Cynicaster]

IMO, some of the definitions put forth in this thread are unnecessarily complicated.

 

I'd narrow the checklist down to the following:

 

1) it should "represent" its own era in some way, be it through the pioneering of new game ideas/concepts or the innovation of existing ones, in ways that help define the course of video game history. Easy game examples are Pong, Pac-Man, Space Invaders, Super Mario Bros, and most definitely Street Fighter 2. These games resonated with people and spawned all kinds of imitators. In doing so, they had a profound impact on the course of how the industry evolved and grew. For consoles, I'd say any console that was prevalent in its own era due to it having a healthy library of games with the aforementioned characteristics. Bonus points for every exclusive title that makes the grade.

 

2) it should "age well". In other words, it should have some level of timeless appeal.

 

 

You might notice I'm using a standard that is very similar to what is applied to rock n' roll. The Beatles, the Rolling Stones, Hendrix, and Led Zeppelin all did in their day for popular/rock music what Pac-Man and Space Invaders did in their day for video games. That's why they're referred to as "classic rock". To bring my second criterion into the analogy, just think of all the music that came out in the 80's that was wildly popular at the time but seems like an utter embarrassment now. In other words, despite its initial popularity, it has not "aged well" and therefore does not deserve the title of "classic".

[Tr3vor]

I say when its 2 generations back, like the n64 and ps1 (not psx btw, thats completely different)

[raskar42]

. A classic can me something very modern but it usually refers to something that is of high quality or timeless or represents the best of something. Vintage on the other hand almost always refers to something that is old or from a certain era.

 

The Atari 2600 is both a vintage console and a classic console.

The Odyssey is just a vintage console.

The Playstation is a classic console but IMO, not old enough to be considered "vintage"

 

seconded

 

much as i love the odyssey and the genius it represents, it's just not a 'Classic' console.

[PsychoKittyNet]

What constitutes a classic is entirely subjective. I consider the NES and the SNES to be classic consoles, but someone else with different tastes or ideas would disagree with me. Oh, and because it bugged me, MKII for the SNES was not the butchered port, MK was stripped of the blood and some of the fatalities changed but MKII was by far the best on the SNES.

[Algus]

I say when its 2 generations back, like the n64 and ps1 (not psx btw, thats completely different)

 

No! Don't fall into the trap and let them ruin it for you.

It was called PSX back in the day before this number business started >.<

And before they released some other thing that was also called the PSX.

 

Fight the power man. Keep the original as PSX!

[108 Stars]

Yes, it was the project name and remained the common abbreviation for the system until the 2000s. PSX just is a name that awakens memories of the 1990ies for me... a name connected to a classic, not some half-assed-multimedia-PS2.

[raskar42]

i remember it being sold as the psx -- never the ps1 and rarely as the ps. they didn't call it ps1 until the ps2 was being developed.

 

 

also ww1 wasn't ww1 until ww2.

 

js

[Seob]

I would say that the Odyssey is a classic, since it kickoff the game console market. You can't talk about the history of video gaming home consoles, without mentioning that brown box.

 

Movie based game can be classical to. Just think about Goldeneye 007 on the n64, that defined 4 player gaming.

[mbd30]

Movie based game can be classical to. Just think about Goldeneye 007 on the n64, that defined 4 player gaming.

 

The original "Tron" and "Star Wars" arcade games are certainly classics.

[Video]

Well, one thing is, it has to be old. I can't stand reading mags and seeing shit labeled as "the new classic" or some other such stuff....among other things, peoples tastes change, what about next year, or ten years from now?

 

True classics stand the test of time....therefore it has to be old before it can even be taken into consideration that it is classic. I'd say a minimum of being out of production for 10 years or so...99% of everything for the Atari Jaguar would fit the bill (tough there are newer stuff)

 

Second, it has to be liked. Just because something is old, doesn't make it good, or classic. Fairchild is certainly an old system (even older than the 2600)however, few people look back on it as a good system, it's not classic, just old.

[raskar42]

Well, one thing is, it has to be old. I can't stand reading mags and seeing shit labeled as "the new classic" or some other such stuff....among other things, peoples tastes change, what about next year, or ten years from now?

 

yes to that - age is definitely a major part of the equation.