Topic: What Retro Systems do you think hold up well?

@KratosMD: I remember playing Diablo on PS and that game needed a whole memory card for itself!!! I still have a bunch of PS memory cards and by a bunch I mean 10 to 12. I had them categorized by game genres like one for fighting games, one for RPGs, one for sports etc.

@KratosMD: If you have a PS3 (any version will work) I suggest playing your PSONE games on that. That way you won't need a memory card. Instead it will just save to the HDD.

even though i have to agree there
i must admit having a weak spot for the saturn

Personally I don't think any retro system holds up well today - unless we count last gen consoles as 'retro'. That doesn't mean to say that some games haven't lasted well though but that, to me at least, is a different issue.
There are games on most systems that are perfectly playable and great examples of their genre that still hold up well with modern versions too. SM64 was just as much fun when it came to the DSi and no doubt if you still have an N64, would still hold up well but a number of games on that system also don't pass the test of time. A number of franchises still exist so we can compare new with old, games like Fifa and PES (or ISS as it was then), are better today than they were then. I have bought a few retro collections over the years, Sega Megadrive collection, Capcom collection, Rare Replay etc and whilst some games still stand the test of time, not all have. If you are selective on these games, I guess a lot of the original consoles could hold up today but personally I think its more the games themselves that hold up well rather than the consoles they originated on.

@BAMozzy i disagree with that
the snes and megadrive still hold up very well to this day
and the 2D games in the saturn library still hold up very well too

and the ps2-xbox-cube library its still as playable today as it was 10 years ago

@KitsuneNight Thats your opinion - Mine however is that the hardware itself doesn't hold up well at all.

Even you keep mentioning the games - which if packaged and sold in a collection (like the Sega Megadrive Collection) would make the old consoles totally irrelevant and obsolete. Some of the games that were first released on those platforms have lasted well and would still be playable and fun on a PS4/XB1s - in fact quite a few clones in the 'indie' store have proven that these games still stand the test of time.

Its not the consoles themselves that are holding up well but the games that have ultimately stood the test of time. Whilst a lot of the PS2/Xbox/Cube era games are still playable (again the games that have stood up well more than the hardware), Many have been surpassed by modern iterations and technology. Its a shame that some games from that era have disappeared - so we don't have the modern equivalent anymore. Racing games generally have shifted to predominantly Sim focussed than arcade and fun style for example and a lot of the diversity has gone. Rarely can you find a 3D platformer. For 2D gaming, the only option is the 'indie' market. Therefore if you want to play some of the games that era offered up, the only choice is 'retro' consoles and like I said some of these have stood the test of time well - more than the hardware itself.

I can't think of any game that couldn't be improved upon in someway (frame-rates, visuals etc) on better hardware and if they ever did release a 'Rare Reply, Sega Megadrive' type collection of these games, they would make the old consoles obsolete. The only reason to play would be for the games that were 'missing' from these collections.

I am sure Nostalgia plays a role. Reliving the past memories of playing on those old consoles but the reality is the hardware itself hasn't stood the test of time. Whether or not they would be 'great' or illicit such feelings had they never released until today and had to compete with 'modern' games, who knows. Fact is they were part of lives growing up and many were 'firsts' of their genre or 'firsts' for us as gamers. There will always be something about Ray Harryhausen's movies that today look clunky and quite poor by modern standards but Nostalgia will always keep these as 'special' to me.

Retro games may stand the test of time and the consoles do by default as the only place to play them.

@BAMozzy @KitsuneNight As much as I respect BAMozzys opinion on a ton of things, if a game isn't pushing the graphical envelope he's rarely interested, and (despite my strong disagreement there) trying to convince him otherwise is an exercise in futility

I can still play a lot of SNES and Mega Drive games as though they're new. I would say it's the 16-bit era that's held up the best, but that's just my opinion.

I think, to some extent, virtually every retro system can hold its own based on a few stellar titles, but I think a better way of looking at it is which games still hold up. As a resident of the UK I grew up with the Commodore brand of computers to play on (mainly the C64 and Amiga) unlike those weirdos who had a Spectrum and later on the Atari ST. On the Amiga alone I must have played 1000+ different games and, I'd guess, most of them wouldn't be worth anyone's time today, but some of them are pretty much timeless to me and the same can be said for games on most systems.

I'd probably say the best way to figure out if a retro system is for you is to measure your patience and ability to overlook image quality and the higher both are the further back you can go through past systems. Once you hit around pre 1980 though the games get a lot more basic for the most part.

@kyleforrester87 Thats not true and you know it!! The point I was making is that the consoles themselves do not hold up but the games do - with or without modern day graphics. SM64 is still just as playable today - whether played on a DS or N64. The console itself makes no difference.

Games like Jet Force Gemini though could definitely do with an overhaul and is dated by comparison. Blast Corps too feels clunky but because its still unique and nothing else quite like it, its still playable. I also referenced the Sega Megadrive - a collection of games, all with the same graphics etc that are still just as playable today as they were when they released on the Megadrive and I can't think of any modern game, with modern graphics that out does Sonic the original Sonic. In many ways, some of the earlier and graphically poorer versions of Mario Kart are far more enjoyable and fun to play than later iterations.

The point I was making though is that in many cases, the old games have stood the test of time - not the hardware. If these games were ported (with or without graphical upgrades) the consoles they were on become totally obsolete. The fact that many of these games are only playable on that hardware is why the consoles have lasted as the only means to play those games.

Some 3D visuals are poor but not only that, some are very clunky in control with poor camera angles. At the time though, they were cutting edge and 'acceptable' but lets be honest, if they released games with the performance and clunky controls today, those games would be slated - even if they looked as good as the Order or Uncharted.

I admit that I would much prefer to see a 2D Sonic game with visuals befitting the modern day hardware to some 8/16bit nostalgic trip but ultimately the game-play is most important. I don't see why, in the era of 1080/2160p screens, high quality audio and hardware that can put both of these together to great effect, that we get games made to the standards of the 1980's when that technology was just a dream. I bet if the technology was around then, These games wouldn't look like they did - it was a case of having to because that's what the technology allowed at the time.

Most of the games we have 'disagreed' on are more about the style of game-play rather than just the visual presentation and I doubt they would be of interest if they looked as visually impressive as Uncharted either. You just want to pick up on the graphical side, not the fact that the game-play too is very dated and often very shallow too - the equivalent of tiddly-winks or ludo. If visuals and/or resolution were my priority, I certainly wouldn't have bought a XB1 this generation. but by the same token, I didn't but this generation of console for the same experiences I had 20+ years ago either. I would much prefer to see those 20year old games brought forward and yes, I would prefer to see them updated visually but I would still prefer them to be ported as they were than play some 'clone'.

I didn't spend that much on 'Next' gen consoles to play 20yr old games - not just in visuals, but audio and game-play too.

@get2sammyb yeah i agree, the 16-bit era never seams to age badly

I think with past retro systems, you are less tolerant of mediocrity so you look towards the quality of the games. I still have my entire NES and SNES back catalogue and I do occasionally step back into some of the games but I must admit that a good half of my games catalogue I won't revist because they were ok or just good at the time but nothing amazing.

So on the SNES, I would still play Mario Kart, Street Fighter 2 or Super Metroid but I have some games like Urban Strike or Simpsons that I enjoyed at the time but wouldn't call them great.

It is the same now, there have been some amazing games this generation but in ten years, I'll probably only want to reply a handful of them.