Why Modern "Consoles?"

[+wongojack]

Sorry if this was already posted elsewhere.  Someone on the What Have You Actually Played Thread pointed out the rename of this subforum.  I realize that the Classic sections seem to make sense being broken out into Consoles and Computers, but as far as I can tell, there is no "Modern Computing" section and two of the pinned threads in this section deal heavily with PC gaming. 

 

Can't the subforum just go back to being called Modern Gaming or something neutral?

[carlsson]

I mentioned it here but no change yet. We can pretend that personal computers, smartphones etc are gaming consoles for the time being.

 

[youxia]

"Modern Gaming" is a good idea. It's not like it's the main focus of this site and the subforum itself is not that busy, so I'd say there is no need further fragmentation.

[MrMaddog]

6 hours ago, wongojack said:

Sorry if this was already posted elsewhere.  Someone on the What Have You Actually Played Thread pointed out the rename of this subforum.  I realize that the Classic sections seem to make sense being broken out into Consoles and Computers, but as far as I can tell, there is no "Modern Computing" section and two of the pinned threads in this section deal heavily with PC gaming.

 

To be honest, nearly all modern PC games (especially on Steam) are console ports.

 

And a lot of indie games wind up on consoles or at elast the Switch.

 

 

[Agamon]

18 hours ago, MrMaddog said:

To be honest, nearly all modern PC games (especially on Steam) are console ports.

 

If you focus on AAA FPS games, that might be true.  But if look at the number of games on Steam, GOG, Itch.io, etc compared to what's available on console, It's pretty hard to say it's most, let alone nearly all.

 

[MrMaddog]

20 hours ago, MrMaddog said:

And a lot of indie games wind up on consoles or at least the Switch.

 

There's still a majority of indie games on Steam but only because console makers have a more strigent process of QC and certification.  Nevertheless some still make it on the consoles.

 

The point still being that everyone says PC gaming is "different" from console gaming but there's a huge lapover between the two platforms unlike in the 90's.

 

As a PC gamer, I want to see the types of games that are better than what you can get on cheaper consoles but publishers say overwise....

[cimerians]

On 1/1/2021 at 11:06 AM, wongojack said:

Can't the subforum just go back to being called Modern Gaming or something neutral?

 

I agree it should be Modern Gaming since there's console specific threads already anyway and so many games are cross platform today (thanks MS for doing your part), I also know quite a few people that are relegated to playing on PC only due to physical ailments\disabilities, I was one of them a few years ago. Sounds stupid but I play a few phone games and sometimes I feel like posting something about it in Modern Consoles but I feel wierd doing it so I skip it.

 

Also imo it seems there's been a huge rush of console to PC transfers amongst the younger people too because of the "I want to be the next streamer competitive gamer" having dreams of getting loads of followers playing Fortnight or Rocketleague in competitive matchers etc. (ex. Ninja). I'm not saying consoles are total crap for competitive play but I'm definitely seeing that they're not even a consideration for most serious competitive gamers. Just my own observation I've had the last two-three years.

[Shawn]

There are tons of forums dedicated to PC gaming already.

[IntelliMission]

Sorry, but that argument doesn't hold up. For the same reason, we could say there are enough forums about the PS5, Xbox Series X or Nintendo Switch already.

 

I'm not a modern PC gamer myself, but I recognize this is yet another inconsistency in Atari Age's forum categories, in addition to:

 

- Dreamcast and 3DO sections but no PS1, Sega Saturn, N64, Game Cube or Xbox ones.

 

- An Amiga subforum but no MS-DOS one.

[+wongojack]

My original question was why was the subforum renamed as "Modern Consoles?"  I assumed that it was to conform with the separate classic subforums which are named individually for Consoles and Computers.  However, if the answer really is that AtariAge expects discussions about modern computers to move to a different forum then that seems foolish.

 

Because there is no subforum for modern computing, this one should be renamed to something neutral.  I know AtariAge gets ad revenue and benefits from discussions about "modern" gaming.  It should be encouraged for people to have those discussions somewhere on the AA boards.  It is also confusing that someone is expected to post in a section specifically named for consoles about PCs.  I doubt a new person would be able to decide where a post about anything related to modern PC gaming should go.

[Shawn]

On 1/3/2021 at 8:49 AM, IntelliMission said:

 For the same reason, we could say there are enough forums about the PS5, Xbox Series X or Nintendo Switch already.

 

 

 

And I would agree with that 100 percent. Things outside of vintage Atari are extra's on this site.

[+wongojack]

21 hours ago, Shawn said:

 

And I would agree with that 100 percent. Things outside of vintage Atari are extra's on this site.

While this is 100% true, I seriously doubt that the purpose behind renaming this subforum from Modern Gaming to Modern Consoles was to discourage members from posting about Modern PCs.

[Agamon]

Plus, I'm not much of a mobile gamer, myself, but mobile devices aren't consoles, either.

[Shawn]

19 hours ago, wongojack said:

While this is 100% true, I seriously doubt that the purpose behind renaming this subform from Modern Gaming to Modern Consoles was to discourage members from posting about Modern PCs.

 

I never mentioned anything about the renaming of the subform. I could care less what they call it. 

[bluejay]

10 minutes ago, Shawn said:

 

I never mentioned anything about the renaming of the subform. I could care less what they call it. 

Then I don't see why you decided to post on a discussion about renaming the forum...

On 1/3/2021 at 5:49 AM, IntelliMission said:

- Dreamcast and 3DO sections but no PS1, Sega Saturn, N64, Game Cube or Xbox ones.

 

- An Amiga subforum but no MS-DOS one.

AtariAge, as you know, is Atari focused. They only make new subforums for more obscure or unpopular systems that don't have a good dedicated forum elsewhere, or for systems that us AAers want included on AA. All the systems you've mentioned that don't have its own subforum is because they have their own dedicated, active communities elsewhere, and there isn't much demand here for subforums for those systems. There's no reason to make a subforum where only a few people will post, when there are much better dedicated forums on the web.

 

On that note, I have no clue why they decided to make NES, SNES, and Dreamcast subforums.

[Shawn]

25 minutes ago, bluejay said:

Then I don't see why you decided to post on a discussion about renaming the forum...

 

 

Because I was speaking to the matter that a distinction is made towards consoles in general on this forum as there are a zillion other forums that cover PC gaming. Assuming AtariAge is gonna be a catchall is just silly to me. Complaining about it is even worse. 

[+wongojack]

The topic here is that this forum was already named "Modern Gaming."  It was renamed to "Modern Consoles."  There's already many posts regarding non-console gaming here, so the fact that it was renamed seems like an oversight.

 

This impacts me personally because I frequently post in one of the most active threads here - the Modern Gaming time tracker thread.

[Bilnick]

I wouldn't mind having a section for VR headsets like Oculus Quest 2 or HTC Vive.  Could be used for PSVR specific game discussion too. 

 

The PS3/Xbox360/Wii sections should probably be in classic gaming now as they all came out 15-16 years ago. Xbox 360 was released closer to the SNES release date than today. (Seems hard to believe sometimes) 

[RARusk]

Seeing the topic title I can't help but think "why male models"?

[Reaperman]

Hijacking this slightly, is there a way to archive modern console threads to classic after a set period? Gamecube's pretty classic by now, right?

 

It doesn't happen often, but when, say, this xbox thread, comes up after 10 years, it's still perfectly valid, but maybe more classic now.

Edited February 5, 2021 by Reaperman

[carlsson]

The debate what is retro and what is not is just as old as the Internet. Basically there are two schools to this:

 

1. Retro is defined from a given set of parameters, boiling down to a particular period in time. Point. Exactly where that period begins and in particular ends is a bit floating. Some would say that retro gaming is anything before 1985 (NES). Some would say 1989 (Genesis). Some would say 1994 (PlayStation). Some would say 1999 (before the new millennium). If one uses a such measurement, the Gamecube, Xbox, PS2 etc never will become retro no matter how many years pass. Eventually they may be considered neo-retro by younger generations, or simply obsolete.

 

2. Retro is defined from a relative time period. Usually it can be broken down into two subcategories:

 

2.1. Counting from when the system was launched. For those living on the cutting edge, that would be 10 years. For the more conservative, that would be 20 years.

 

2.2. Counting from when the manufacturer stopped producing and supporting the system. This could be anything from 3 to 10+ years ago.

 

I don't really see what the benefit is to move threads or categories from one part of the forum to another, other than making a statement that system X now is considered to have a different classification than it used to. In an ideal world, the forum would from the beginning have been divided into Generation 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 but that introduces even more hacking up of the forum plus that not everyone really agree with the definition of generations neither.

 

Since this after all is AtariAge where all the main formats were released in the 20th century, with the exception of a series of Flashback units and the new "VCS" system that honestly only by name is an Atari system, it would seem that from the viewpoint of the initial focus of the forum, things like Gamecube, Xbox and PS2 still are pretty modern.

 

Still the original question hangs in the air: Why is modern PC gaming not included by the forum title? The old name for this forum was more generic and covered anything not included in the subforums. The new name explicitly says "consoles" which to most part would relate to the systems too new to be retro, but too old to have their own subforums.

[Video]

Yeah it's hard to define old/retro/ modern.

 

Retro is just old, but usually associated with good or cool too. Game boy and game.com are both 'old's but I'm pretty sure most people would only count game boy as retro.

 

someone once defined old/retro as pre disc era. Which I found funny because that could define jaguar or n64 as retro but sacd and psx as modern, despite being the same age. Or switch being retro while turbo CD being modern.

 

Honestly I've always considered it old if it's last gen (not in current production) but retro/old once it's out by two generations. I'd consider Xbox and ps2 as both old/retro consoles. Still not perfect, Atari is in limbo, so jaguar is ataris most current console, despite dying in the 90's, well, till the vcs drops later this year.

[carlsson]

BTW, I just answered a question about the Xbox One in a retro gaming oriented Facebook group. I think that is taking it at least one step too far, no matter how much you live at the bleeding edge when it comes to video games consoles.

 

Sure, it could be a seal of quality too that people into retro games are decent, reasonable people compared to the younger brats only interested in how many fps they can squeeze out of the latest system.

Edited February 16, 2021 by carlsson

[Reaperman]

26 minutes ago, carlsson said:

Sure, it could be a seal of quality too that people into retro games are decent, reasonable people compared to the younger brats only interested in how many fps they can squeeze out of the latest system.

That's actually why I talk modern games in here--that and there are modern games targeted squarely at us oldsters that don't get much buzz elsewhere.

 

As far as modern vs retro, I realized something the other day--AA might set the arbitrary 'classic date' at ~20 years from launch, which would explain the new dreamcast subforum(?) and why not ps2/xbox/gc.  Maybe there's less method to it than I think, and it's just coincidence that I'm reading too much into.  Most of the DC threads are probably still here in modern gaming, but it'd probably be way harder to pull out just dc discussion to load up a specific subforum.  For the record, I'm actually not the biggest subforum fan, since I know I'm probably going to miss out on sweet Dreamcast homebrew preorders with it hiding in a subforum

Edited February 16, 2021 by Reaperman

[youxia]

57 minutes ago, carlsson said:

Sure, it could be a seal of quality too that people into retro games are decent, reasonable people compared to the younger brats only interested in how many fps they can squeeze out of the latest system.

If only...the amount of juvenile behaviour I've seen on retro forums does not match COD multiplayer chat levels perhaps, but it's still quite amusing

 

Regarding the term retro here's an interesting discussion: apparently that term does not mean what we think ...

 

Quote

The other day we had a couple of friends over for dinner, and our C64 and Amstrad were still set up from previous weekend's retrogaming.
So I of course say to them: "Those are our retro computers", which spawned a longer debate.
"But those aren't retro" the guy says.
"Err.. what?", I replied.
"Retro is when you create something new that revives or relates to a style in the past. Those computers there are originals, not retro", he explained while pointing to the C64 and Amstrad CPC.

After some discussion we googled for the definition, and it would seem that he is indeed right. All definitions we could find seems to confirm what he says.
We of course tried to argue that: "Ok, but can't something that looks retro look retro because it actually IS old?", but he didn't budge.
"No, it's still not retro. If anything, it's classic" he insisted.
Made me think of @ukmarkh  who apparently then seems to be the only one with a correct YouTube channel name: "Classic Gaming".

In other words....  the new C64 mini is actually retro then, because it's a new thing with a retro design. It is reviving the C64 - ergo retro. But the original C64 is not retro. It is original. Can be called classic.

 

Edited February 16, 2021 by youxia