racketboy.com

Stark wrote:

noiseredux wrote:when the PS2 came out, I bought it because I'd be getting a new game console PLUS I'd have access to this new hotness known as "DVD."

Seriously, I feel old.

I was similar. Although I viewed it as replacing the DVD player I had already bought for way too much. I still remember that GLORY was the first DVD I bought.

What was interesting to me was, after some experiments, finding out which DVDs the PS2 doesn't get along with. For example, in Vampire Hunter D: Bloodlust, there are some scenes where the screen flashes white, and the PS2 just flips out and glitches for a second.

The DVD player function was never a draw for me, but I had special circumstances. When I was in Japan I entered a sweepstakes for Mandarake. They were planning on entering the US market. So I signed up on their US site for the sweepstakes, and won a DVD player. It was one of the early sub-$500 models and was actually a really well-featured player. It still works even today, because it's a Pioneer and is awesome. (DV-414 for anyone who cares.)

So, basically, when I got back from Japan there was a DVD player waiting for me, and I went back to college fall of 1999 with a DVD player. Only person I knew at college with one. I actually had to save my $$ for a while to buy a DVD to play in it (I think my first DVD was the Pioneer Tenchi Muyo Ryo-Ohki box set: cost like $100). So I already had a DVD player when the Dreamcast came out, and I though the Dreamcast was pretty boss and didn't have any need for the PS2. I spend so much time collecting clearance/closeout DC titles that I didn't have any money (I was poor right after college for a while, paying off a car and rent and whatnot) or time for anything newer until the Gamebox Advance SP.

For anyone else, trying to decide between $399 for a dedicated DVD player or for a system that also plays games, maybe that calculus is a lot easier. For me, I already had a much better DVD player.

BoringSupreez wrote:Retro is determined by the age of the game/hardware, not how "modern" it remains.

Apparently not if we have a thread debating whether a system is retro or not.

Going by your definition, two games released on the same day could be different levels of retro at the same time.

And they very well can be. I'd consider a Game Boy Color game retro before I'd consider a PS2 game retro even if the two theoretical games were released simultaneously. Hell, I'd even consider a Game Boy Advance game to be retro before the PS2, and that thing came out later than the PS2. To anyone bitching that we're using the word "retro" wrong, there's your fucking retro console.

EDIT: I forgot to edit in these quotes:

Nintendork666 wrote:Yeah, but even Super Mario Bros is still accessible to modern gamers.

That's true, I guess "accessible" isn't the right word. I'm just trying to emphasize the transition from a newer title to an older one. It'd be easier to transition from Ratchet and Clank: A Crack in Time to the original title than it would be to transition from that to Super Mario 64.

A 2012 Kesha song might not be 'old school' yet, but I'll be damned if Rollin' by Limp Bizkit isn't.

They See Me Rollin'... oh wait, wrong song.

Does it really matter? It's a bit of a tired question really. Is this still a fun system with fun games? What are those fun games? Those are more interesting questions. I mean are you going to be more interested in the PS2 because it's retro and that's gonna give it some sort of cultural cachet?

I love the ps2. I'm happy with it and its library. I'm also happy that if i don't want to play the ps2, I can just play ps1 games.

It's Motro and Retmo either term is fine.

TEKTORO wrote:It's Motro and Retmo either term is fine.

Motro in action:

YES!


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

Stark wrote:

TEKTORO wrote:It's Motro and Retmo either term is fine.

Motro in action:

lololololoololololololoololoolel

I can't find a ps2 appriciation thread so I think it's this one. Anyways will be playing some ps2 games today. Not sure what but I have been a arcade trip lately and I'm in the mood for some Namco museum. Also some space invaders. But for some odd reason I think I like space invaders more on the 2600 than the actual arcade. Same goes for asteroids.
Also instead of the thread asking if it's still retro? Can someone replace it to a appriciation thread? I mean we all know it's a retro system now but this is one system that should have a appriciation thread.

My definition of retro is very wide; personally the question "Is it retro?" usually extends to "can I find it in my local gaming store?"

Most gaming stores that I frequent in my area (with one awesome exception) don't sell PS2 games, Wii games and even one stopped selling PS3 games. They have moved on to PS4 and Wii U which was so disappointing. As you might have guessed I've pretty much boycotted all their stores now and only enter the coolest which still has N64 games etc.

I also love when I can enter a pawn shop (which usually has super cool titles for bargain bin prices) and just find cool stuff.

I'm not that old but my family was on the poorer side when I was younger and we couldn't afford to just "buy" a DVD player when it came out so we had to wait.
I actually remember the first time I saw a DVD, it was at a friends place; she had like a million DVDs on those racks (I'd never seen a rack like that either...). The thing was SO COOL, I mean I remember wondering just how they could fit a WHOLE movie on such a tiny disc. At the time we still had a VHS machine and I recall fondly when the thing would start to stall or skip and we had to pull the thing apart and clean the heads with mentholated spirits on a ear cleaner. We did have one of those head cleaning tapes but the machine was so old that it didn't cut it anymore.
We were stuck with that machine for so long until we couldn't buy VHS tapes any more and then we were forced to upgrade.

The only reason why I have an iPad is because I won it in a comp.
I have no blu-rays 'cause I'm convinced it's a fad and will disappear just like Betamax; remember Betamax? If you do you're probably part of the rare few.
I only have a PS3 because they came down and became pretty cheap plus I stopped being able to easily find PS2 games (of course now I know where to look).

So I guess from the above you can guess that the term "retro" is subjective. In my case, the things most considered retro was simply what I could afford. Retro, like the word antique, can apply to anything even slightly out of date; on an episode of Antiques Roadshow (yes I watch it, I love it...) they questioned the meaning of the word when they had a Banksy on which had only been painted a month ago.

On the retro game purchasing site www.fullyretro.com, the PS3 and Wii are in stock, therefore they consider them "retro".

The reason why this question might be deemed important is because this is a site for retro gaming, so if the PS2 is NOT retro then it shouldn't be discussed here; however it probably is because really retro just means is it the latest model?
Of this question you can assuredly say NO because it is in fact two gens behind.