PS2 Appreciation Thread

[Exhuminator]

If a PS2 is not retro, do you consider playing one retro since you admit it is outdated?

[o.pwuaioc]

Properly, the "retro" part of "retro gaming" shouldn't refer to the games or the consoles, but the act of playing "outdated" consoles, typically as a way to contrast it with modern games. Playing old games is retro. Playing modern games is current.

If a PS2 is not retro, do you consider playing one retro since you admit it is outdated?

I already answered that.

We can indeed change the question to "Do enough people now play the PS2 as a fashionable statement of their gaming to call it a trend?" If not, it's difficult to say—blanketly—that it's a retro console. It's just a bit out of date. I mean, if someone doesn't have a smart phone, is that retro? They just stopped making games for the PS2 a couple years ago, and Okami was released on PS2, Wii, and PS3.

It's older than current technology, that's a fact. But it doesn't feel like it's antiquated technology compared to memory-less 2600 or, for larger comparisons, a horse and buggy is for transportation.

It's not old enough, out-dated enough, antiquated enough, to be "retro".

[pepharytheworm]

Properly, the "retro" part of "retro gaming" shouldn't refer to the games or the consoles, but the act of playing "outdated" consoles, typically as a way to contrast it with modern games. Playing old games is retro. Playing modern games is current.

If a PS2 is not retro, do you consider playing one retro since you admit it is outdated?

I already answered that.

We can indeed change the question to "Do enough people now play the PS2 as a fashionable statement of their gaming to call it a trend?" If not, it's difficult to say—blanketly—that it's a retro console. It's just a bit out of date. I mean, if someone doesn't have a smart phone, is that retro? They just stopped making games for the PS2 a couple years ago, and Okami was released on PS2, Wii, and PS3.

It's older than current technology, that's a fact. But it doesn't feel like it's antiquated technology compared to memory-less 2600 or, for larger comparisons, a horse and buggy is for transportation.

It's not old enough, out-dated enough, antiquated enough, to be "retro".

Does anyone play the Magnavox Odyssey or Fairchild Channel F as a fashionable statement? You didn't really answer my question though. By your own words a console itself is not retro, so I am not asking that. No where are you answering is the act of playing games on a PS2 retro.

Kinda weird you are now using old as a quantifier for retro.

[Jagosaurus]

I'd say the Dreamcast "feels" older for a few reasons:
- Not supported for near as long as PS2 (discontinued March 2001, launched 9/9/99)
- Many more arcade ports (during a time when arcade where still relevant)
- The name Sega attached to it, last console made
- No dual analog sticks

I'd say the PS2 "less" old for several as well:
- PS2 made until 2013
- Games made until 2014
- Current PS4 controller similar to PS2
- HD re-releases of games that came out on PS2
- Many PS2 games with 16:9 widescreen
- Handful of PS2 games that support HD
- PS2 software extremely influential on the game play mechanics to follow on PS3 (PS3 then also had a long lifespan)
- PS4 games currently are not a huge jump from previous gen (making the PS2 and PS3 seem even less "further back")


To play devils advocate, Devil May Cry on PS2 came out the following year after Marvel vs Capcom 2 on the Dreamcast. How many would say MvC is retro but DMC is not. If you fall in the later category (DMC is not retro but MvC is), wil you consider DMC retro in 12 months time? To me, this solidifies that is more than just "how old" is the game or console. There are many factors IMO and it may vary for different individuals.

I bought a DC two weeks after launch. It feels retro me. I played God of War on PS2 for 5 hours this Saturday. It did not feel retro. So.... basically I have no idea lol . I see both sides.

[TSTR]

it's only retro if you just play PS1 games on it

[Ack]

I'd say the PS2 "less" old for several as well:
- PS2 made until 2013
- Games made until 2014
- Current PS4 controller similar to PS2
- HD re-releases of games that came out on PS2
- Many PS2 games with 16:9 widescreen
- Handful of PS2 games that support HD
- PS2 software extremely influential on the game play mechanics to follow on PS3 (PS3 then also had a long lifespan)
- PS4 games currently are not a huge jump from previous gen (making the PS2 and PS3 seem even less "further back")

But...

- PS1 made until 2006
- Last released PS1 collection was in 2012
- Current PS4 controller similar to PS1 Dual Shock
- HD re-releases of games that came out on PS1
- Many PS1 games with 16:9 widescreen
- PS1 software extremely influential on the game play mechanics to follow on PS2/PS3/PS4 (PS2/PS3 then also had a long lifespan)
- PS4 games currently are not a huge jump from previous gen (making the PS1, PS2, and PS3 seem even less "further back")

Really the only difference is HD, and PS1 emulators are now being used as a work around.

[BoneSnapDeez]

But...

PS1 launched in '94 in Japan.
All games are CD-ROMs.
Many games feature those early blocky 3D graphics you don't see today.

In all seriousness, if I had to draw a line between "classic" and "modern" gaming then "classic" would consist of 1st-4th gens with the very earliest CD systems (Sega, NEC) included + older arcade, computer, and handheld technology. Everything else feels more on the "modern" end to me. Though I (somewhat begrudgingly) will also lump the 5th gen and Dreamcast into the "retro" sphere given their age.

Also, Dreamcast is the last console that, to me, feels niche and, dare I say, "geeky."

Again, I am "old" and play a lot of second-gen stuff. If you don't acknowledge these older systems then your perception is skewed. I've heard people here state that "gaming begins with the NES" which is a bunch of tortoise testicles.

[Exhuminator]

22 pages and the answer hasn't been definitively reached yet.

It's almost like this is a purely subjective issue incapable of being concretely realized as fact.

Maybe we should just hang it up guys.




Nah fuck that let's keep going.

Howabout anything released from 1999 and back is now retro?

[alienjesus]

People regarded the Dreamcast as retro when I joined the site. Despite that being 6 years ago, they don't seem to have moved the line. They'll probably continue to regard Dreamcast as the last retro console forever at this point.

[o.pwuaioc]

People regarded the Dreamcast as retro when I joined the site. Despite that being 6 years ago, they don't seem to have moved the line. They'll probably continue to regard Dreamcast as the last retro console forever at this point.

People consider playing Dreamcast retro because being a "Dreamcast gamer" is a very different kind of beast than being a "PlayStation gamer", with one not just out-dated in technical capabilities, but in gameplay (as Jagosaurus said) which is more action-oriented, more similar to an arcade. PlayStation, PS2, and later represent a shift in era.

To put it another way, let's think about modern games. If a game comes out today that plays like God of War, it doesn't feel out of place in the modern gaming world. If it has polygons and 3D graphics, it doesn't feel out of place. If it has CD-quality music, it doesn't feel out of place.

If the graphics look like it's made up of pixels, the gameplay is a side-scrolling platformer/shooter/beat-em-up, and uses music even vaguely reminiscent of 8-bit sound chips, it feels like it belongs in another time. VVVVVV is retro. God of War is modern.

The answer to this question shouldn't focus on how old the tech is or whether it pales in comparison to newer tech, but whether it deliberately chooses an aesthetic that hearkens back an older, by-gone era.

When flares came back in around 1997, they weren't retro because no one wore flare pants anymore, they were retro because they symbolized the hippy movement and disco, an era (or two eras) that had completely ceased to exist because of the gritty 80s and grungy 90s.

Similarly, the Dreamcast represents the Sega ages, the arcade era. Playing it, especially playing it for games like Crazy Taxi, MvC, and Bust-a-Move 4, is making a statement that you think those kind of games are cool. You might also think that God War and Devil May Cry are cool, but you're not hearkening back to an earlier era by doing so.

It's funny that this forum is fully aware of this, and yet many here deny it when it comes to the PS2. For example, the thread Favorite Modern Retro Games would make no sense at all if the age of a game was the defining criterion for retro/modern. Look at the suggestions there. Most of the suggestions are very much reminiscent of the 8-bit/16-bit era.