The passage of time. Weird one, init? Never mind the fact I just turned 30 this month and – dodgy knees aside – still feel about 21, there’s something else that’s got me all messed up this week.
While plumbing the depths of the Twitterverse the other night, I stumbled across something that I didn’t particularly want to see. No, not another Hasbulla meme, but one of those little factoids that blows your mind in a sort of mundane way, like realising your tongue is the only part of your reflection you can lick.
And that factoid went thusly – the PS3 is now as old as the SNES was when the PS3 launched.
Yep, dat triple is creeping up on its 17th birthday this year, which means not only is it as old as the SNES was in 2006, but it’ll no doubt be chancing its way into Wetherspoons with a fake ID and ordering three Strikabombs any moment now. More importantly for us though, it raises the question – should we now consider the PS3 to be retro?
There were strong opinions on both sides, but given that it’s Twitter we’re talking about here, they were expressed via the medium of anonymous accounts telling each other to “seethe and cope” while attempting to ratio one another using Bugs Bunny memes.
This low-brow tomfoolery only left me hungry for a proper discussion with an intensely enlightened, amicable, and stunningly handsome group of folk – a group like the Push Square community, of course! Ha ha. Please love me.
My Two Cents
So, what do I think? Well, maybe it’s the fact that I was but a wee, spotty teenager at the time, but back in ‘06, the Super Nintendo felt like ancient history – a product from a bygone era, with its bleeps and bloops, and simplistic, grey controller.
At the same age, the PS3 – while certainly knocking on a bit – doesn’t give me that same feeling. It still looks fairly sleek and modern, and I’d be hard pressed to look at something like Uncharted 2: Among Thieves and lump it in the same category as Contra III.
So, it got me thinking – what does ‘retro’ actually mean? Is it defined by something as arbitrary as the number of years that have passed since a thing’s release, or is it more to do with a certain aesthetic or design philosophy?
For me personally, it definitely goes beyond superficial aspects like audiovisual presentation. It’s more to do with the actual design philosophies that were present – or rather, forced – during those early years of home video games, where limited hardware power naturally meant more simplistic experiences.
To me, today’s biggest games often simply feel like (much) more expansive, more refined versions of what we were playing during the sixth generation of consoles. That was the last true paradigm shift in terms of game development and what was actually possible, and so it feels like a natural cut-off.
For that reason, I’d personally struggle to call anything from the PS2 onwards ‘retro’, but it feels very
shortsighted of me to imagine that’ll always be the case. Others would argue that’s just me not wanting to feel like an old git.
But what do you think? Maybe your categorisations are influenced by something else entirely, like the actual styling of the console itself? Systems from the ‘90s certainly had an almost brutalist look to them, what with all those straight lines and grey plastic. Simply looking at a picture of a Game Boy is enough to make the word ‘retro’ appear in my head.
However you feel, there’s definitely an interesting debate to be had here, and we’d love to hear your thoughts! Unless of course you disagree with me, in which case, didn’t ask + seethe + cope + ratio.
Do you consider the PS3 to be a retro console? (1,878 votes)
- Absolutely, it's almost 20 years old30%
- Not just yet, but give it a few more years28%
- It’ll be a long time, but I’m sure I’ll see it as retro one day19%
- PS3 game design is too modern to ever be considered truly retro15%
- 'Retro' is a largely meaningless term that isn't helpful8%
Everyone will have a different opinion on what's considered a retro console.
For me it's pretty much anything that's a none current console that's no longer in production or getting new game releases.
Also a person's age will effect their answers. Eg if you were 5-6 years old and PS3 was your first console then to them that is retro.
Yeah, it’s retro in my view. PS3 and Wii are retro. PS4 and Wii U are last gen. They’ll be retro once the next PlayStation and Nintendo launches. Nice and simple. Until you get into handhelds, and if you consider Switch a 3DS successor. But that’s another argument.
Nope, only console below psone can be considered retro (nes, genesis, snes, etc)
Well Google seems to think vintage is anything over 20 years whilst retro is below around 15 - 20 years, so yeah officially the PS3 is classed as retro.
I would say yes because its 2 generations old now
once the store and multiplayer are off line definitely yes
"PS3 a retro console?" Hello darkness my old friend.
I really wish they would clean up the UI and do a little more on the store prices, super budget console with some great games.
Then it would be a nice retro console then.
The only drawback is that as so many games got remastered for the PS4, the PS3 will just disappear into history.
It would be cool to have a mini digital PS4 in the future when technology allows, unlikely but cool.
Anything before PlayStation (1994): Classic retro
Anything after & including PlayStation (1994) but before the PS4: Modern retro
for me yes. once games stop being released for it its 'retro'.
Not yet but in a few more years once its into the 20 years. The fact it still does all what the recent consoles do now like online multiplayer, digital purchases on PS store, updates, games used to get patches and trophies. 20 years or above just feels more genuine retro, to me at least anyways
nah it’s not retro , it still has many modern things that consoles have today & it was pretty future proof (not to mention it absolutely stomps the sorry *** PS5-steps backwards) . the OG ps3 is a rare prized possession, it was worth the $600 for how much it does & i still think it’s the best looking playstation; the sleek glossy design and sophisticated wealthy look is badass .
even today i don’t think the OG ps3 should cost less than $300 , it’s a feature rich console with a banger library and BC.
love the ps3 ❤️
Break inFAMOUS 1 and 2 out of PS3 jail please.
Nooope. Not for me anyway. I don't know if it will ever be. The difference between ps3 and ps2 was massive. HD, online, trophies, etc. Since then there have been some innovations, but no jump has ever felt so great.
@wiiware i beg to differ, the ps2 is definitely retro . it’s been 2 decades and the jump from ps2 to ps3 was significant .
if it doesn’t have an HDMI port , it’s retro . lol
There's a lot of nostalgia with the things we really enjoyed in the past. More recently I've been getting huge nostalgia thoughts with the early PS4 games like Knack, TheOrder1886, Killzone Shadow Fall and Infamous Second Son, but all these are barely 10 years old at this point and are no way considered retro. I think sometimes nostalgia makes things feel more retro than they actually are
Anything that's no longer in production, no longer supported with 'new' releases is 'retro' to me and certainly 10yrs in gaming is long enough for something to be 'retro' in technological terms.
depends who you ask. i think the younger demographic is much more willing to call the ps3 retro but that is likely due to a different perspective from those who were older when the ps3 launched. there are many factors, but no, i do not think it should be considered retro yet. this may be arbitrary, but i feel like a greater leap in technology must first come to pass before we can look at the ps3 as retro. for example, once the gaming industry forgoes physical media and is completely digital OR a new video standard replaces HDMI, it will be easier to consider the ps3 retro. the ps2 and wii, being the last analog consoles from sony and nintendo respectively, pass for retro at this point (barely), but any generation after that isn't there yet and may need another console generation (beginning of the ps6 or ps7 era perhaps depending how things evolve).
Without fixed definitions, it's always going to be subjective.
But Retro consoles have always been a bit of a misnomer. It we look at what the words actually mean outside gaming, the usual 3 words that pop up for older seeming items are Vintage, Retro and Antique.
By that rationale NES, SNES etc. should be Vintage consoles not Retro and PS3 is just about there. But Retro in gaming has come to mean something different. It SHOULD mean games like Streets of Rage 4, Shovel Knight or pixel art games of today that imitate the past. Or consoles like the retro styled Series S with those Dieter Rams inspired lines. But that's not typically what we mean.
Can we all at least agree that systems like the Magnavox Odyssey or Atari 2600 are now Antiques!
Confused yet? I am
@nomither6 agree with you about HDMI being a factor. perhaps ps3 will be considered retro only once HDMI standard is succeeded by something else.
It's on display in the London Science museum if that helps... I recoiled in disgust aha.
I don’t consider it retro just yet. I think it’s because the jump between the last few generations of consoles isn’t as big as going from 2D to 3D, so that makes it feel more modern. Plus the fact that the PS3 is still online also helps make it feel less dated.
Before I got my PS5 I actually considered going back to just using my PS3 as my main console to save myself some money. Most games are dirt cheap and they still look and play great. Part of me wishes I actually did that, even though I love my PS5.
Yes for me.
Definitely feels weird there not being as big a jump in the past 17 years as the same size jumps prior
The console itself can still blend into a modern living room, so the style definitely isn't retro.
The games, I don't know, not much has changed really apart from better graphics, there hasn't been a huge shift/evolution in gameplay types.
Nintendo Switch released as current retro?
I just don't really think about it personally. But if I had to pick a side I'd say no it's not retro. Retro gaming to me is gaming that would be difficult to appreciate for a modern audience. So like old Atari, Super Nintendo, Sega Genesis, etcetera. It's difficult to extract any fun from these older games unless I have nostalgia for them. Game design during this time is simply very different from what it is today.
I still find it perfectly possible to extract fun from a PS3 game even if I've never played it because it's still relatively modern. But as a primarily Sega kid growing up I find it difficult to find enjoyment from even the best SNES games because I have no nostalgia for them. Without nostalgia involved I don't even find games like Super Mario Bros. 4, widely considered one of the best Mario titles ever, very enjoyable.
So long story short, if it's something that is difficult to enjoy without nostalgia, that's what I consider retro.
I keep it simple and not based on years. Two generations back from the current console generation is retro. So yes PS3/360/Wii and everything previous is retro. As well as console lines that ended like Vita…. Still the best hand held ever made!
Depends on the age of the person I guess. Anything after PSX is sunset not retro.
Yeah, I feel the PS3 is right at the cusp of being considered retro. Crazy to think that it's almost 20 years old.
damn I remember back in the day on bush camp, me and my friends speculated if the PS3 will ever exist, we didn't even have proper Telkom internet in my small town back then to check, god i feel old now
I love my PS3 and would still play it regularly if I had the room to. Whether it's retro or not doesn't really matter to me. What this article has really highlighted for me is how little games have progressed in the last 17 years.
Every console with more than 10 years is considered retro.
What I really want to know is how a 30 year old feels like they're 21. I turned 30 last month and I've felt like I've been in my 40's since I was 25.
If it ain't "Alive" anymore then it qualifies to be a retro console..
Although retro to me is more my old MegaDrive from back when I was 15 in 1990 or the Atari 2600, C64 and BBC prior to that...
I genuinely feel that whatever was around when you were at a specific age also influences that opinion too, but maybe that's a personal thing..
There isn't really a right or wrong answer as ultimately, it's all subjective to the individual..
Even PS4 is a retro console at this point, 10 years old.
To put it into perspective, PS2 was released in 2000 while Snes was released in 1990.
Sad thing is, some people are still wanting games to be designed around a 10 year old console 🤦♂️
It's the first "retro" console of the HD era. Time is marching on
Current gen - last gen - retro
Ps3/360 is my favorite gen of all time.
It absolutely is a Retro console by almost any accepted definition of retro.
The only time its not retro, is when I boot up Motor Storm and marvel at its presentation and graphics. Still holds up today...
I feel retro has less meaning when applied to internet based consoles. Is it really retro when you can easily buy games on the original hardware without resorting to buying preowned? I don't know.
Whether it is or not, what I'm thankful for is that the massive backlash against Jim Ryan shutting down the stores forced him to reverse course.
Games are more modern than ps2 and beyond but games have transitioned quite a bit in design since these days. Its Retro and for the love of god Sony figure back compatibility out for this gen to play on current hardware
Maybe we should use the term "Classic" instead?
Next Gen - PS6
Modern - PS5
Last Gen - PS4
Classic - PS3
Retro - PS2 and PS1
When PS6 releases, each system would then get knocked down until eventually, all end up in the retro category.
Eventually, gaming as we know it will cease. I expect the VR headsets are the first leap into the new categories of gaming presentation. Beyond that? Who knows. Perhaps Star Trek holodecks will eventually be the new "gaming" platform.
Not for me as I see retro consoles as been different style of gaming to what we have today, where as the PS3 is virtually the same as what we have now. The SNES is very different to what the PS3 is but the PS5 just isn't at all, I mean is GTAV a retro game then? Or even The Last of Us?
What it does show is that games have remained largely unchanged for quite a long time now, apart from being a bit prettier, compared to the constant evolution we once had
Given it's an arbitrary label with no definite meaning consider the PS3 retro if you want and not If you don't.
It’s hard for me to necessarily call PS3 retro just yet, even though it does feel “old” by most standards now and a lot of the games have aged far more than my nostalgia would have me imagine things. The reason why it’s hard to call PS3 retro is because PS5 still feels like “next gen.” It hasn’t hit a stride of feeling like “current gen,” as most PS5 games are technically PS4 games with better load times. Sure, there’s a few legitimate PS5 titles, but, I mean, Crysis used to look and feel insane when it launched and a whole level “beyond” back at release, you know? And that’s now a previous gen title. Once PS5 feels “current gen” and the PS4 relegates itself to being a device of the past, I think it’ll make more sense to call PS3 retro.
It feels retro because they dont make Games for ps3 anymore.but at the same time a lot of ps3 games still looks amazing.word up son
By just saying the words a quarter of a century feels proper retro. PS1 being almost 30 years old and PS2 being almost 25 years old, both a quarter of a century old, means they feel way more retro. In 2031 the PS3 will be a quarter of a century old
@meistergeister. Have you played the Steam Deck?
Don't shoot the messenger, but us having a hard time perceiving Gen 7 consoles as "retro" may well testify that the subsequent generations haven't added THAT much on top, at least when you compare it to the other example at hand. SNES was where 2D graphics truly blossomed; PS3 (especially its later years) was where CGI finally hit a similar stage. SNES and PS3 feel like different eras in the way that PS3 and PS5 ultimately don't quite.
@Stevemalkpus Steam Deck is a handheld micro PC, those come with a bit too much fine print to be the best anything. I'm in the market for it myself (someday when it won't cost me a kidney to import one, not that either of my kidneys might even fetch the needed price by now), but my experience with GPD Win has ensured that I will only use it for games I can't play on Switch and the console handhelds.
This is meaningless. Everyone will have a different perception of the term "retro". It is almost as difficult to define as "vintage" or "classic". These definitions depend on our personal experiences and connections with these systems. Thus, we are all correct.
PS2 and before is retro. Anything after is not.
Its a retro system for sure. Its slow, clunky, and has miserable performance that was barely acceptable even back then. As far as games go, there's a reason games like Demon Souls, Last of Us, and Dead Space are seeing remakes. The real question should be whether gaming reached a creative ceiling that generation.
I think it's safe to say that the original Sonic The Hedgehog on the Mega Drive is considered a retro game. However, it was released only last year native to current (and last generation) consoles. But the game released last year was not "technically" the original game ported over, but a brand new game, built in a new engine, with a new art pallette, new features, etc. so in a way, Sonic 1 could be considered a brand new game.
Just some food for thought.
I don't even consider the ps2 to be retro. And ps1 is borderline in my eyes. I'm just old, that's what it is.
It's certainly on the boundaries of retro. I'd say it is retro, but im not going to argue if people think otherwise.
Yes. It is. I'd say 15 years is a fair point to start calling a console 'retro'. Technology moves quickly and becomes completely outdated within several years. SNES was 17yo and the Mega Drive was 18yo when when the PS3 released - I'm sure everyone would have called them retro at that point.
I still use my PS3 and I can assure you that booting that thing up after using the PS5... it certainly feels retro 😂
Not that any of this really matters. It's completely subjective.
My favourite console of all time.
@SlySnake0407 Stay away from drugs, nicotine products and moderate your drinking. I'm in my early 40's and feel the same as I did in my late 20's.
Just play on it especially non rumble sixaxis model and compared to the ps5 most games will feel a bit retro but still fun to be had. Great console
@stvevan developers can still technically develop games for ps3 tho I believe.
@Mikey856 hey you’re the guy that also likes FF13 ! i swear we have good tastes! ps3 is legendary
Maybe when new NCAA games are released. Until then it’s very much current gen for me.
@Uncharted2007 I like all of those things though. I think I'll stick with my vices and pray I die young. Hahaha
I still play it everyday. Maybe even more than my PS5, and I dont think it feels that old. Besides a fancier UI and being faster with the SSD I don't feel the OS for the PS3 feels that dated. I hope it stays online for another 20 years.
Oh hell Naw! I play the PS3 waaaay more than my PS4. Such a great variety of different games! I want the PS3 network to be fully functional again!
Isn't retro defined by something being like 12 years old or something like dat
Try being 50+ and hearing 30 year olds talk as if they're getting old! I remember when my C64 felt retro, let alone the PS3. 🤣
On the positive side, I'm far fitter, happier and more relaxed now that I ever was at that age, and enjoying my gaming more than ever, so don't panic quite yet. 👍
I’d give it a few years but the Switch has kinda made that sort of presentation something we see on a daily basis and really this generation is basically the consolidation and final refinement of what THAT generation started to offer. Nice reflection.
No one would call clothing, music, or cars from 2006 retro. 70s, 80s, maybe 90s? That's retro. Still, it's kind of a pointless term and debate.
@Gamer_Guy Same here, pal!
@nomither6 I was there when gaming made the jump from 2D to 3D, so every 3D console (from psone and up) is not retro for me lol.
@Drago201 No. Also, "dat" is not a word.
PS3 is 17 years old now so I considered as retro console.
Absolutely not retro. Retro has never been defined by a specific age, calling something retro just because two new iterations of a product exist. it's defined by it's design exuding a style popular in a particular, definable era that no longer is a dominant style, and it is a style that clearly recalls that particular era.
The physical PS5 has no design attribute that connects it to any particular time periods styles, nor does anything separate it from current styles.
The games of the PS3 are not different in any way but fidelity and size of current games. Again, no era is identified by it's aesthetic or game design. Heck the PS5 launch featured a PS3 game with upgraded fidelity.
I consider the PS3 retro when compared to the PS5 because of age and features. While not as old as PS2 and PS1 the PS3's features, tech, and graphics are different enough than the current gen to be retro to me.
@NEStalgia I must say, my thoughts align really closely with yours, and it's a much more compelling argument than "XX years/generations old = retro". I truly don't think it can be boiled down to something so arbitrary.
@themightyant I like your definition of retro more than any of the others proposed here. Retro refers to copying the aesthetic of past generations.
Extrapolating that to refer to what game aesthetics someone would consider to be “retro”, I propose that for a console to be considered retro, someone has to have had enough nostalgia to develop a game in that console’s style.
Plenty of games these days have a pixel-based aesthetic, whether 8-bit or 16-bit, which would mean the era of NES, Genesis, SNES, etc. would be considered retro. It’s more rare, but I’ve seen a few indie games copy the GameBoy aesthetic, so that’s probably retro. The GameBoy Color and the GBA are similar to the NES and SNES, so those are retro. In recent years, I’ve even seen games going with a PlayStation 1 aesthetic, as ugly as it is 😏. So that might be retro.
I‘m not aware of anyone specifically making a game in the style of the PS2 era. But I kinda still think it could be considered retro, given the lack of standardized control schemes. If you’re playing a game where Triangle is cancel instead of Circle, you know what I’m talking about.
When it comes to the PS3, controls, gameplay elements, character movement, etc. became standardized in that generation. The main difference between that and the current generation is resolution, so it’s pretty hard to tell whether a game would be going for a PS3 aesthetic, even if someone were trying. I’ve heard some people refer to a game like Wanted: Dead as having the feel of an old Xbox 360 game, in terms of its more simplistic gameplay, but you would never be able to tell just by looking at it.
So, going with that reasoning, I don’t consider the PS3 a retro console, and unless there is a gigantic leap in technology — like photorealistic graphics in headset-less VR that you control with your mind — it may never be.
(Oh, and if you consider the Atari 2600 antique, that means I am also antique, and I am offended.😭)
I've just turned 55, not dead yet & enjoying my PS5, glad it's not a ps3 and incredibly grateful it's not a ps1 or Nintendo or even as when I was a kid an Atari, don't see the appeal of retro games(but each to their own) & love not having to stare at space invader style pixels anymore!
I know what you mean about the ambiguity of definitions, but no way PS3 is retro in my eyes. PS2 might be, but even that is arguable depending on how you look at it.
The Last of Us was on PS3, is that seriously a retro game to anybody. And if PS3 is retro now, PS4 will be retro right after PS5. Do any of you seriously believe that.
So, no, PS3 isn't retro by any reasonable perception.
Things don't change enough between generations now, so stuff from 20 years back will feel less "retro" but still nostalgic for those who were young at the release of particular games. New gameplay mechanics are few and far between as controllers remain about the same and game worlds have been able to be complicated and expansive for a while. So it all kinda blends together.
@Jok-Havok Intersring. I'm close to your age and totally into modern gaming but still love all the old stuff going all the way back to Atari 2600 and late 70s arcade games.
No way, or am I having a mini crisis also.... I see the PS2 but the PS3 feels part of the modern wave of HD consoles. It least in MY head I see the split between HDMI and pre HDMI and yes the PS3 defaults to composit output but the HDMI port is there and HDMI is not retro.
I also think of retro as the few years or the CRT era. With PS3 it has it's AV/HDMI so eh, it's proper online and store fronts even though the Dreamcast online before the Xbox Live and PS2 had online but 'it's retro because..... and in the 90s and also a 480p console....' Yeah other than aesthetics I don't take the retro line as much of anything than years to say then calling it old. And that it isn't vintage either so it has to be something.
I mean these days PS3 still has some games that are a bit experimental PS2 like while others set in place the modern design (even then some games have old school object needed to manual save or other small details in modern games so you never know).
I still care about the PS3 era more than PS4+ era (trends don't interest me as much, the business models are worse even if yes the online pass era and DLC really starts with PS3 more even if yes we had Star Wars Battlefront Xbox DLC or standalone games like GTA London and other exceptions but eh and PC games had expansions of course) even then some adventure games are very clunky or designed around old aspects others not. Not all but some still have that. The story telling and art and more may be modern but the controls and feel may not be. Many games do have good controls though just some are exceptions.
There is a reason I still play my PS3 and PS2 is the games felt that bit different, the last era of experimental games with normal controllers (I mean pressure sensitive buttons sure but it wasn't that big or common) or not trend of trying in PS2, bit more in PS3 and fully going PS4 onwards. I mean like I like motion and the touchpad 'when they get used' but still.
It's a great media console and gaming machine. I mean I picked up The Club yesterday for PS3 and had fun with an arcade racing game devs attempt at an arcade modern shooter approach. 24 The Game having that awkward PS2 trying to be PS3 but still having an awkward aiming system that wasn't Killswitch or Gears or others yet, Medal of Honor Frontline is very old shooter design.
I'm good picking up games for these systems or the Xbox equivalents and Nintendo equivalents. I struggle to find games I care about for PS4 that much. I do find them but eh. I mean playing Conception a PSP definitive edition PS4 release has been fun but I mean come on. XD Or whatever AAs I'm in the mood for.
There is a reason I used my PS3 more the whole PS4 gen even when owning a PS4 I only played a handful of games and even with using my PS4 more I still just don't care there just wasn't much compelling me to use it.
Nowadays my PS4 is third party machine and for what first party: Gravity Rush, Knack, Killzone Shadowfall, LBP3 was.... ok. Gran Turismo Sport/7 are I'm not even going to get into why I'm not interested in them. Ratchet same thing 2016/Rift Apart.
Dreams is cool if into that sort of things and I enjoyed it but I haven't bothered to use the creative tools even though I do like that sort of thing I just haven't found the time.
Otherwise eh not much I care for the big stuff outside them, mostly Japanese niche games and the odd AAs by third parties. Playlink titles just for collecting like EyeToy/Move purposes....
I mean my Xbox One isn't much better but at least ReCore, Rare Replay and Sunset Overdrive were fun, Forza Motorsport 5 & 7 I can stomach more than GT Sport/7. The era of great Japan Studio games in PS4 era and still going so strong for the PS3/PSP.
A great console with a controller that i hated so much it kept me from playing it more. I loved MotorStorm and Resistance, little big planet, Metal Gear 4 and so many others. Hard to believe it’s been 20 years, Sony learned some humility with the PS3 and have been doing much better since.
To me, "retro" is ultimately and inevitably going to mean one key, heartbreaking thing: games that can still be accessed either in physical form or via emulators. In the current age of so many digital-only releases (especially when they're online dependent) and subscription models, videogames have become throwaway items. Once the servers get pulled, or the corporations move on to another model, or once each generation's online store closes, thousands of games are going to disappear forever (and countless ones already have). Ditto licensing issues; many incredible titles may never exist again simply to to rights issues or expired licenses. Only games with physical discs, cartridges, or other media will remain to be played on aging systems or dumped onto ROM sites. The PS3 may qualify as a retro console in the sense of its physical releases, but it was also one of the first consoles to truly have an extensive catalog of digital-only releases...games which are now gone forever, unable to be accessed by anyone. Fat Princess, Afterburner Climax, and so many other games that deserve so much better.
@nomither6 ha seems so pal. We got good taste 👌. I’ve just grabbed a factory sealed copy of Siren Blood Curse off eBay, remember that
Nope my Atari 2600 is retro. I've 2 ps3 consoles my original launch one 40gb and fell in with the PS2 compatible one. Modern classic 🤔....
There is so much to discuss here. It is not just a question of the aesthetics of games from this era. A lot of what makes a system considered retro relates to the hardware itself. The restoration and modding communities that form around older systems play a large part in the perception of what is deemed retro.
These communities concerned with restoring, modding and collecting PS3 (and PS2) hardware look to find ways to improve upon the older technology, bringing the convenience of modern storage formats to older, disc-based systems, as well as finding ways to output the system to modern displays in a more favourable manner. That the three different PS3 models also saw their own iterations (most notable and sought after being the original version of the first model - that being the preferred system for backwards compatibility) means that the PS3 cannot really be seen as one system. It is many systems, some seen as better than others, depending on the needs of the user.
The act of collecting software also plays a huge role in the retro scene. The Cell architecture made the PS3 unique and many games remain trapped on the system, due to the difficulties in porting/emulating them. Despite the introduction of the PS Store on the system, many games remain available only on disc on PS3, which means playing on original hardware with original software is the only way to experience a number of these games. The PC performance power required in order to satisfactorily emulate PS3 means this route is unrealistic for many. It remains an ideal, but one which still present its quirks and inaccuracies, resulting in an experience that is often not 100% authentic.
The game design on PS3 may feel more modern, but the visual presentation, from the graphical techniques used in the games, to the output resolution, do not compare to today’s experiences. We are unlikely to see a dramatic change in television technology for a while - 4K, HDR, 120Hz will probably remain the standard for a number of years. Consoles that were designed with older standards in mind will always feel part of not just another generation, but of a technological era.
The PS3 is a great system to collect for, as most games are generally fairly cheap to pick up. I must have amassed a collection of over 300 PS3 games and each one belong to a console somewhat trapped in time. It will be a long-time, if ever, before we see retro communities enthused about a system like the PS4. There will be nothing to change, nothing to add, no games held in limbo, nothing to entice the excitement that the PS3 (and arguably PS2) instil in those that like to tinker and preserve.
If 8bitdo could just make a mod-kit for the DS3…
Retro Fighter does not count.
There's a term for anything aged 20 years or above. And it's called 'Vintage'.
Is the PS3 retro? I don't think so, but vintage? Yeah. I think so.
When the PS3 store front finally shuts down, then it'll be retro. Until then? It's a classic.
Yeah, it's retro by years alone. But I'm more akin to the "classic" label since I can boot up a PS3 game without having the initial "oof, this looks rough". thought.
Graphics used to age as fast as milk back then. It was easier to see the PS1 and PS2 as an "old console" after 5 years. Not to mention the previous transition from 2D to 3D within 5 years. Now we have people labeling God of War Ragnarok a "PS4 game upscaled on PS5" and it still looks damn good on a 10 year old console. It's just a little irony that the PS4 has longer loading times than PS1 did.
I think a good way is that any thing before 'last gen' is retro. Sure it's arbitrary, but what other definition is there? 'Before 1995? 1997? 2000?' no matter what year it is? That's both arbitrary and increasingly meaningless. It kind of reminds me of how our current era from 1979 is sometimes called 'Modern Britain'. Surely every era of any kind needs to end sometime?
That's not a bad compromise. Current gen, last gen, classic, then retro. Even then it's unclear of where the classic/retro boundary is, though.
'Factoid' actually means "an item of unreliable information that is reported and repeated so often that it becomes accepted as fact" ('oid' suffix denotes that). I blame Steve Wright for totally misusing it for over two decades.
In that context, it isn't retro but enough people may say it is, so it is I suppose.
Ok, load it on your 4k tv, experience all the load times, especially in 3rd party titles, take notice of all the design choices of those days, and then you'll understand, why majority of promotions, related to the remasters of titles of that era, tells you they offering you to re-expirience "classic" game.
It's classic, because it's retro.
@Blacksmith1985 load times is one feature that has passed right over me to be honest. Maybe I'm just accustomed to them, but I don't really get any joy out of the ps5 loading a bit faster.
The occasional game was ridiculous, GTA online springs to mind, but waiting a few extra seconds means nothing to me.
Maybe I still compare everything to my starting gaming device, the spectrum lol.
The Wii introducing the Virtual Console back in 06 coloured my perception of what is “retro.” PSOne classics too.
With the amount of remakes & remasters, I consider the PS5 a retro console
I'm in the "retro is a meaningless term" category. To me, retro generally refers to anything in the era before home consoles output HD resolutions, so the PS3 does not fit what I consider to be retro. But, that is by no means an agreed-upon standard, so retro can mean something else to anyone else and I cannot argue that they are wrong.
right now, i feel like its a console in sandwich between retro and modern.
ps2 is barely retro to me. or maybe... im denying my age.
For me, something becomes retro not only by age but by how games are designed and the PS3 very much feels retro in how things are designed. Where the PS5 feels like a continuation of the PS4 era the PS4 never truly felt like a continuation of the PS3 (outside of cross gen games, of course).
It’s an interesting topic and one that people can be pretty stubborn on, most don’t see anything past SNES as retro for example.
Long story short, I consider it retro myself, but from the looks of things it’ll be the last generation I consider retro and not just old. Unless the PS6+ changes things up again to give the games their own feel that sets it apart from the prior generations.
@doctommaso Late '80s clothing, music, and cars were retro in 2006, despite being the same age as 2006 stuff is now.
Is it subjective, and we just feel like things take longer to become "retro" as we get older (as 10-20 years seems so short now)?
Or are certain aspects of culture and tech objectively changing at a slower pace? (Perhaps both?)
If you considered the PS1 retro when the PS3 released, then yes. If not, then I guess not.
@smoreon Great points!
Hard for me to actually picture it as a retro machine, I consider retro to be anything I had during my childhood.
So PS2 and older.
welcome to your thirties! this will keep happening to you for the rest of your life 😌
me in 2018:
Original Macintosh (1984) → Mac OS X 10.0 (2001) : 17 years
Mac OS X 10.0 (2001) → Today (2018) : 17 years
We're officially old.
me in 2015:
a new hope - phantom menace = 22 years.
jurassic park - jurassic world... 22 YEARS. 😦💨
Tap here to load 105 comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...