Is RuneScape retro? It was also first released in '99 and is still supported.
3
61 replies to this topic
#26 OFFLINE
DemonoidTentacle
-
-
- 313 posts
Moonsweeper
- Location:Tasmania, Australia
Posted Sun Feb 5, 2012 9:43 PM
#27 OFFLINE
save2600
-
-
- 5,805 posts
Quadrunner
- Location:WI
Posted Sun Feb 5, 2012 9:46 PM
Dreamcast is not retro. Just because it's a little old, it still represents modern gaming. Just a great system that was unduly and prematurely given the axe. I still can't believe Sega decided to do that and never look back. 
#28 OFFLINE
Jifremok
-
-
- 312 posts
Moonsweeper
Posted Sun Feb 5, 2012 10:12 PM
By the logic of calling old tech retro, I could say that the entire last generation is retro, and the Wii will also be retro soon enough. But, screw that logic.
When I think retro, I think synonymous with classic. For the short, short answer, I need only refer to Sonic.
When I think retro, I think synonymous with classic. For the short, short answer, I need only refer to Sonic.
#29 OFFLINE
Reaperman
-
-
- 3,024 posts
River Patroller
- Location:New Orleans, LA
Posted Sun Feb 5, 2012 11:42 PM
The platform died close to a decade ago. I'd say that makes it retro. It was pretty much dead when the other 'last gen' systems hit shelves, so it's hard for me to group it in with something like the ps2, which somehow lives on to this day.
I would expect to see dreamcast threads in here, vs the modern gaming forum.
I would expect to see dreamcast threads in here, vs the modern gaming forum.
Edited by Reaperman, Sun Feb 5, 2012 11:43 PM.
#30 ONLINE
AtariLeaf
-
-
- 6,287 posts
Quadrunner
- Location:Ontario Canada
Posted Mon Feb 6, 2012 6:12 AM
ὁ Ῥωμαῖος Νέος, on Sun Feb 5, 2012 6:43 PM, said:
AtariLeaf, on Sun Feb 5, 2012 4:51 PM, said:
Seob, on Sun Feb 5, 2012 4:31 PM, said:
AtariLeaf, on Sun Feb 5, 2012 3:57 PM, said:
ls650, on Sat Feb 4, 2012 12:36 PM, said:
I don't consider anything with an optical disc to be retro.
Maybe in another ten years or so... maybe.
Maybe in another ten years or so... maybe.
Thats basically my take too. Its not a logical argument per se, but I also have a hard time looking at anything with a CD/DVD drive as retro. Too me retro is synonymous with carts.
Retro is always carts but carts are not always retro.
I stand by what I said. Don't try and use logic on me.
#31 ONLINE
Emehr
-
-
- 3,217 posts
River Patroller
- Happiness is... a chomping Pac-Man!
- Location:An obscure body in the SK system
Posted Mon Feb 6, 2012 7:49 AM
Dreamcast: not quite old enough to be retro, not quite new enough to be modern.
This is how I group the generations:
Antique = mid-1970's to mid-1980's
Retro = mid-1980's to mid-1990's
Recent = mid-1990's to mid-2000's
Modern = mid-2000's to present
The labels may change but the grouping will always stay the same for me. I prefer to label them by the predominant gameplay style of the era (arcade, platform, free-roaming 3D, etc.) but since the topic is more about age I thought I'd not confuse the issue. I actually lump everything from the first PlayStation to new consoles in the same category because they all feel the same to me.
This is how I group the generations:
Antique = mid-1970's to mid-1980's
Retro = mid-1980's to mid-1990's
Recent = mid-1990's to mid-2000's
Modern = mid-2000's to present
The labels may change but the grouping will always stay the same for me. I prefer to label them by the predominant gameplay style of the era (arcade, platform, free-roaming 3D, etc.) but since the topic is more about age I thought I'd not confuse the issue. I actually lump everything from the first PlayStation to new consoles in the same category because they all feel the same to me.
#32 OFFLINE
Seob
-
-
- 1,531 posts
Stargunner
- Location:Netherlands
Posted Mon Feb 6, 2012 10:57 AM
Emehr, on Mon Feb 6, 2012 7:49 AM, said:
Dreamcast: not quite old enough to be retro, not quite new enough to be modern.
This is how I group the generations:
Antique = mid-1970's to mid-1980's
Retro = mid-1980's to mid-1990's
Recent = mid-1990's to mid-2000's
Modern = mid-2000's to present
The labels may change but the grouping will always stay the same for me. I prefer to label them by the predominant gameplay style of the era (arcade, platform, free-roaming 3D, etc.) but since the topic is more about age I thought I'd not confuse the issue. I actually lump everything from the first PlayStation to new consoles in the same category because they all feel the same to me.
This is how I group the generations:
Antique = mid-1970's to mid-1980's
Retro = mid-1980's to mid-1990's
Recent = mid-1990's to mid-2000's
Modern = mid-2000's to present
The labels may change but the grouping will always stay the same for me. I prefer to label them by the predominant gameplay style of the era (arcade, platform, free-roaming 3D, etc.) but since the topic is more about age I thought I'd not confuse the issue. I actually lump everything from the first PlayStation to new consoles in the same category because they all feel the same to me.
#34 ONLINE
Cortat G
-
-
- 383 posts
Moonsweeper
- Nintendo-Sega-Atari Fan
- Location:Among the Amish
Posted Fri Mar 30, 2012 11:58 AM
I voted yes because if you told people that you own other console from that generation (i.e. PlayStation 2, Gamecube, Xbox) they are cool with that,
But if you said you own a Dreamcast most of the time they'll say:
1.) "You still have one of those old things?"
2.) "Man, Those things are old."
3.) "What's That?"
But if you said you own a Dreamcast most of the time they'll say:
1.) "You still have one of those old things?"
2.) "Man, Those things are old."
3.) "What's That?"
#35 OFFLINE
NinjaWarrior
-
-
- 832 posts
Dragonstomper
Posted Fri Mar 30, 2012 2:54 PM
Dreamcast isn't retro
So I voted No
So I voted No
#36 OFFLINE
the.golden.ax
-
-
- 10,351 posts
Toss me
- Just don't tell the Elf
Posted Fri Mar 30, 2012 3:11 PM
Many of us Atari Agers are getting old. Dreamcast came out in 1998, fourteen years ago. What did people think of Atari 2600 in 1988? What did people think of Nintendo in 1999? It may be retro by many younger peoples standards, but I think there is a reason it isn't for many of us.
The word retro is slung around these days and means different things to different people. To the kids, I think it means old, before their time (or at least before they were gamers). To the adults, I think it means nostalgic. Since it is a scientific fact that as us old farts age, time proceeds much more quickly. There for we do not perceive something that came out a little over a decade ago to have been released "that long ago." We are not caught in the retro time dilation of the young. As a result some of us are not yet nostalgic about Dreamcast. Many of us have never stopped playing the system, chucked it in a closet only to rediscover it years later, yet. Many of us did that with Atari/others from the mid 70's - 80's. If that happens at some point with Dreamcast, us fogies will probably agree with the younger generations and call it retro.
The word retro is slung around these days and means different things to different people. To the kids, I think it means old, before their time (or at least before they were gamers). To the adults, I think it means nostalgic. Since it is a scientific fact that as us old farts age, time proceeds much more quickly. There for we do not perceive something that came out a little over a decade ago to have been released "that long ago." We are not caught in the retro time dilation of the young. As a result some of us are not yet nostalgic about Dreamcast. Many of us have never stopped playing the system, chucked it in a closet only to rediscover it years later, yet. Many of us did that with Atari/others from the mid 70's - 80's. If that happens at some point with Dreamcast, us fogies will probably agree with the younger generations and call it retro.
#37 OFFLINE
Rex Dart
-
-
- 3,753 posts
River Patroller
- NO CASH VALUE
- Location:Austin, TX
Posted Fri Mar 30, 2012 3:12 PM
I don't want to think of my college console as retro 
#38 OFFLINE
Arkhan
-
-
- 801 posts
Dragonstomper
- Thug Life.
- Location:Atlantis
Posted Fri Mar 30, 2012 3:38 PM
Dreamcast retro?
#39 OFFLINE
jaybird3rd
-
-
- 5,248 posts
Quadrunner
- Location:Northeast Alabama
Posted Fri Mar 30, 2012 4:23 PM
I would say no, while granting that "retro" is one of those words that can mean all things to all people.
To me, if a console is to qualify as "retro", it must be characteristic of a design philosophy which reflects its context (the state of the art or the dominant popular culture at the time it was created), but not today's context, and the differences between the two must be large enough to make the console appear noticeably anachronistic when viewed from the new context. (I'm sure I could do better if I thought about it some more, but it's a serviceable enough definition for now.)
Let us compare the Dreamcast to the Nintendo Wii, for example. The Dreamcast uses optical media, and so does the Wii (albeit of a larger capacity). The Dreamcast is capable of nice-looking 3D graphics, and so is the Wii (albeit of a higher resolution). The Dreamcast was designed to offer online play, and so is the Wii (although it offers built-in broadband and wireless access, while the Dreamcast's broadband adapter was an expensive option). Most of the differences between the two—with the notable exception of the controllers—are merely differences in degree; the types of technologies are largely the same, and so are the types of sequel-driven, franchise-based games that both consoles offer. They're even made of the same shiny white plastic! Now look at the Wii alongside the Atari 5200, with its cartridge media, its lack of online play, and the fact that many of the games in its library are arcade ports, from the days when the arcades were at the leading edge of game design. These are not merely differences in degree, but differences in kind.
(One could argue that the Wii's novel controller design, and the inclusion of DLC and other online elements as an integral part of game design, place Wii games in a different class than Dreamcast games. But even the Dreamcast Fishing Controller isn't that much different in principle from the Wiimote.)
In my opinion, the Dreamcast still too closely resembles today's consoles to be considered "retro", at least to the same extent that the Atari 5200 is "retro". That may change over time depending on what subsequent generations of consoles are like, but the current generation isn't different enough yet.
To me, if a console is to qualify as "retro", it must be characteristic of a design philosophy which reflects its context (the state of the art or the dominant popular culture at the time it was created), but not today's context, and the differences between the two must be large enough to make the console appear noticeably anachronistic when viewed from the new context. (I'm sure I could do better if I thought about it some more, but it's a serviceable enough definition for now.)
Let us compare the Dreamcast to the Nintendo Wii, for example. The Dreamcast uses optical media, and so does the Wii (albeit of a larger capacity). The Dreamcast is capable of nice-looking 3D graphics, and so is the Wii (albeit of a higher resolution). The Dreamcast was designed to offer online play, and so is the Wii (although it offers built-in broadband and wireless access, while the Dreamcast's broadband adapter was an expensive option). Most of the differences between the two—with the notable exception of the controllers—are merely differences in degree; the types of technologies are largely the same, and so are the types of sequel-driven, franchise-based games that both consoles offer. They're even made of the same shiny white plastic! Now look at the Wii alongside the Atari 5200, with its cartridge media, its lack of online play, and the fact that many of the games in its library are arcade ports, from the days when the arcades were at the leading edge of game design. These are not merely differences in degree, but differences in kind.
(One could argue that the Wii's novel controller design, and the inclusion of DLC and other online elements as an integral part of game design, place Wii games in a different class than Dreamcast games. But even the Dreamcast Fishing Controller isn't that much different in principle from the Wiimote.)
In my opinion, the Dreamcast still too closely resembles today's consoles to be considered "retro", at least to the same extent that the Atari 5200 is "retro". That may change over time depending on what subsequent generations of consoles are like, but the current generation isn't different enough yet.
#40 OFFLINE
Mirage
-
-
- 5,853 posts
Quadrunner
- Have a problem? Hire the Envious Snakes!
- Location:Milwaukee, WI
Posted Fri Mar 30, 2012 4:54 PM
the.golden.ax, on Fri Mar 30, 2012 3:11 PM, said:
Many of us Atari Agers are getting old. Dreamcast came out in 1998, fourteen years ago. What did people think of Atari 2600 in 1988? What did people think of Nintendo in 1999? It may be retro by many younger peoples standards, but I think there is a reason it isn't for many of us.
The word retro is slung around these days and means different things to different people. To the kids, I think it means old, before their time (or at least before they were gamers). To the adults, I think it means nostalgic. Since it is a scientific fact that as us old farts age, time proceeds much more quickly. There for we do not perceive something that came out a little over a decade ago to have been released "that long ago." We are not caught in the retro time dilation of the young. As a result some of us are not yet nostalgic about Dreamcast. Many of us have never stopped playing the system, chucked it in a closet only to rediscover it years later, yet. Many of us did that with Atari/others from the mid 70's - 80's. If that happens at some point with Dreamcast, us fogies will probably agree with the younger generations and call it retro.
The word retro is slung around these days and means different things to different people. To the kids, I think it means old, before their time (or at least before they were gamers). To the adults, I think it means nostalgic. Since it is a scientific fact that as us old farts age, time proceeds much more quickly. There for we do not perceive something that came out a little over a decade ago to have been released "that long ago." We are not caught in the retro time dilation of the young. As a result some of us are not yet nostalgic about Dreamcast. Many of us have never stopped playing the system, chucked it in a closet only to rediscover it years later, yet. Many of us did that with Atari/others from the mid 70's - 80's. If that happens at some point with Dreamcast, us fogies will probably agree with the younger generations and call it retro.
The +1 I just gave this post was wholeheartedly for everything except "Many of us Atari Agers are getting old." LOL... I'm not "old", I'm "classic".
#41 OFFLINE
the.golden.ax
-
-
- 10,351 posts
Toss me
- Just don't tell the Elf
Posted Fri Mar 30, 2012 6:46 PM
Mirage, on Fri Mar 30, 2012 4:54 PM, said:
the.golden.ax, on Fri Mar 30, 2012 3:11 PM, said:
Many of us Atari Agers are getting old. Dreamcast came out in 1998, fourteen years ago. What did people think of Atari 2600 in 1988? What did people think of Nintendo in 1999? It may be retro by many younger peoples standards, but I think there is a reason it isn't for many of us.
The word retro is slung around these days and means different things to different people. To the kids, I think it means old, before their time (or at least before they were gamers). To the adults, I think it means nostalgic. Since it is a scientific fact that as us old farts age, time proceeds much more quickly. There for we do not perceive something that came out a little over a decade ago to have been released "that long ago." We are not caught in the retro time dilation of the young. As a result some of us are not yet nostalgic about Dreamcast. Many of us have never stopped playing the system, chucked it in a closet only to rediscover it years later, yet. Many of us did that with Atari/others from the mid 70's - 80's. If that happens at some point with Dreamcast, us fogies will probably agree with the younger generations and call it retro.
The word retro is slung around these days and means different things to different people. To the kids, I think it means old, before their time (or at least before they were gamers). To the adults, I think it means nostalgic. Since it is a scientific fact that as us old farts age, time proceeds much more quickly. There for we do not perceive something that came out a little over a decade ago to have been released "that long ago." We are not caught in the retro time dilation of the young. As a result some of us are not yet nostalgic about Dreamcast. Many of us have never stopped playing the system, chucked it in a closet only to rediscover it years later, yet. Many of us did that with Atari/others from the mid 70's - 80's. If that happens at some point with Dreamcast, us fogies will probably agree with the younger generations and call it retro.
The +1 I just gave this post was wholeheartedly for everything except "Many of us Atari Agers are getting old." LOL... I'm not "old", I'm "classic".
Yep, we are classic... unless observed by a youngin, then we are retro
#42 OFFLINE
Shawn Sr.
-
-
- 12,486 posts
Anti-Keyboard Warrior
Posted Sat Mar 31, 2012 10:48 PM
A system with 1gb discs for its game medium a retro console? I think not. 
#43 OFFLINE
Jibbajaba
-
-
- 3,216 posts
River Patroller
- Location:112 1/2 Beacon St.
Posted Sat Mar 31, 2012 11:48 PM
I voted 'no'. "Retro" is a subjective term, so I'm not surprised by the voting thus far.
To me, retro isn't a particular age, but rather a 'feel'. 16-bit and older is retro to me, but not because of it's age, but because of what the games were like. When 3D really hit in the 32-bit generation, everything changed, and mainstream gaming has for the most part stagnated ever since. For that reason, to me PSX and Saturn are on-the-fence retro because a lot of the games more closely resembled what I would consider to be retro games, rather than modern games. Starting with the PS2/DC/GC/Xbox generation, the vast majority of games more closely resembled 'modern' games, like the games being released today. The DC is a toughy though, because it had so many great arcade ports. It almost felt like the last system that harkened back to the older days. Sure, the DC had a lot of modern-style games, but it had a LOT of games that would be of interest to a retro gamer.
So while I don't think of the DC as a retro console at the moment, I think it may be the last console that I ever think of in that way. I just don't see myself ever looking at the PS2, Xbox, or anything newer as a retro console.
If anyone cares, I actually wrote an article about this very subject on my website a few years back.
http://www.cgquarter.../dc_classic.htm
Chris
To me, retro isn't a particular age, but rather a 'feel'. 16-bit and older is retro to me, but not because of it's age, but because of what the games were like. When 3D really hit in the 32-bit generation, everything changed, and mainstream gaming has for the most part stagnated ever since. For that reason, to me PSX and Saturn are on-the-fence retro because a lot of the games more closely resembled what I would consider to be retro games, rather than modern games. Starting with the PS2/DC/GC/Xbox generation, the vast majority of games more closely resembled 'modern' games, like the games being released today. The DC is a toughy though, because it had so many great arcade ports. It almost felt like the last system that harkened back to the older days. Sure, the DC had a lot of modern-style games, but it had a LOT of games that would be of interest to a retro gamer.
So while I don't think of the DC as a retro console at the moment, I think it may be the last console that I ever think of in that way. I just don't see myself ever looking at the PS2, Xbox, or anything newer as a retro console.
If anyone cares, I actually wrote an article about this very subject on my website a few years back.
http://www.cgquarter.../dc_classic.htm
Chris
#44 OFFLINE
xDragonWarrior
-
-
- 29 posts
Space Invader
Posted Sat Apr 28, 2012 9:58 PM
the Dreamcast is about 15 going on 16 years if that's not retro what is.the PS2,GC,Xbox is not retro but the PS1,N64, Saturn retro
#45 OFFLINE
pce_collector
-
-
- 331 posts
Moonsweeper
- Working Weekends
Posted Sun Apr 29, 2012 5:46 AM
Austin, on Sun Feb 5, 2012 3:36 PM, said:
...a good portion of its library is focused heavily on quick pick-up-and-play, arcade-style gaming, something you don't see much with consoles these days outside of the download-only area shops...
I voted "Yes" for this reason. I find that many Dreamcast games have that classic, arcade-style feel.
#46 OFFLINE
R.O.T.S
-
-
- 146 posts
Chopper Commander
- Location:West Midlands UK
Posted Mon Apr 30, 2012 1:29 PM
I depends really- to me it also can be influenced by how old you are,i am 40 and to me everything up to and including the Dreamcast is retro,after that the consoles seemed to take a really huge step tech wise.
Even in 20 years time the xbox,Gamecube and Ps2 will still not be retro to me.
Even in 20 years time the xbox,Gamecube and Ps2 will still not be retro to me.
#47 OFFLINE
Metal Ghost
-
-
- 770 posts
Dragonstomper
Posted Mon Apr 30, 2012 1:57 PM
Adrian Hon had a great blog post over at MSSV.net on this topic, that I chimed in on. For anyone who doesn't know who he is, he was the lead designer behind the Perplex City ARG and developer for the iOS game ZOMBIES, RUN!
But in any event, I always love when this topic comes up, because it really is quite nuanced.
But in any event, I always love when this topic comes up, because it really is quite nuanced.
#48 OFFLINE
GonzoGamer
-
-
- 169 posts
Chopper Commander
- Location:Texas
Posted Tue May 1, 2012 3:36 PM
to me any system that no longer has games being made commercially for it (Dreamcast) is a retro system, there are different levels of retro of course, 70s, 80s, 90s, etc., now as of March of 2012 i guess the PS2 will join the ranks of retro being that the final game was released for it (a 2012 baseball game) the playstation 2 is now complete.
#50 OFFLINE
Rex Dart
-
-
- 3,753 posts
River Patroller
- NO CASH VALUE
- Location:Austin, TX
Posted Tue May 1, 2012 4:42 PM
It's old, but it's not retro. Just because a can of soup is expired doesn't mean it's a retro collectible.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
