Modern Gaming/Classic Gaming..... where's the dividing line?

[Atari_Worshipper]

Where do you place the dividing line between classic gaming and modern gaming? This is something where there may not be a specific correct answer, in other words, this is more opinion than fact...

 

That being said, I place the dividing line not at a given year, or even at a given system. I place the dividing line at dimensions...2D or 3D......that's not to say that I judge by game, but by system. Although all systems have had some form of 2D game and some form of 3D game (though very rudimentary on the pre 3DO systems) certain systems were designed w/ 2D in mind and certain systems were designed w/ 3D in mind... so that where I draw the line... in the grey area between 92 and 96, I look at the specs of the system and determine whether 2D or 3D were the focus..... to name a few, I will say that I consider the CD-i and Neo Geo (AES or CD) as classic (or old school) and 3DO and Jaguar as modern (or new school). The exception to this would be if a system came out after 97 or 98 that's geared for 2D primarily (I.e. GBA and Neo Geo Color Pocket). I'd still call that new school.

 

Now, there's classic gaming and modern gaming, but I'd say there's another catagory yet.. I call it "current gaming" and that's whatever the systems are that are out which they are actively making games for, it's the "right now"...(that's why I can claim that I consider the 3DO which is 11 years old as new school and not feel nuts)

[MegaManFan]

I remember having this same debate on RGVC, and without looking up my last post on the subject I think I came to almost this exact conclusion:

 

* Vintage: Anything before 1978

* Old School/Classic: 1979-1984

* Golden Era: 1985-1993

* Modern Era: 1994-1998

* Next Gen: 1999-today

[desiv]

I remember having this same debate on RGVC, and without looking up my last post on the subject I think I came to almost this exact conclusion:

 

Well, my take (being an old schooler):

 

FUN---------------* Vintage: Anything before 1978

Great/Classic---* Old School/Classic: 1979-1984

Not bad----------* Golden Era: 1985-1993

Mostly crappy---* Modern Era: 1994-1998

What games?---* Next Gen: 1999-today

 

OK, I admit there are some modern fun games, but for me, modern was SNES and Genesis. Classic was pre-crash...

(NES is grandfathered into classic (Tho I've waffled on that one.. in the end, it feels classic, even tho I didn't have an NES as a kid), as is the 7800 being on the crash border)

 

My only complaint is the phrase "Golden" as it seems to signify the best. I have more fun with Classic gaming systems.

 

IMHO

 

desiv

[Great Hierophant]

FUN---------------* Vintage: Anything before 1978  

Great/Classic---* Old School/Classic: 1979-1984  

Not bad----------* Golden Era: 1985-1993  

Mostly crappy---* Modern Era: 1994-1998  

What games?---* Next Gen: 1999-today  

 

I mostly agree with your schedules, but I would tweak them:

 

Vintage: Anything before 1977

Classic: 1977-1984

Bit-Age: 1985-1994

3D Era: 1995-2000

3D Second Era: 2000+

[sigma]

I pretty much have to go with MegaManFan on this one

[JB]

I remember having this same debate on RGVC, and without looking up my last post on the subject I think I came to almost this exact conclusion:

 

* Vintage: Anything before 1978

* Old School/Classic: 1979-1984

* Golden Era: 1985-1993

* Modern Era: 1994-1998

* Next Gen: 1999-today

Can we change next-gen to current-gen?

Next-gen is the ones in development now. PS3, N5, and XBox2 are the next-gen systems.

 

The PS2, GameCube, and XBox ceased to be next-gen when they took over as the "main" systems from the PS1 and N64.

[Atari_Worshipper]

right JB. you could almost imagine "current" gaming as being a park bench.... some will sit down for a time, and then they'll move a long and more will take their place

 

I still believe that the biggest distinction between modern and classic was 2D/3D and therefore think the start of the grey area would be at the release of the 3DO or Jaguar (I don't remember off hand which was first) and the end of the grey area would be with the demise of the SNES.

 

You guys also broke it down even further, which is good, but I'd say the end of classic era one (which I'll call the golden era, not because it was the best, but because it was the first) and classic era two (which I'll call the pinnacle, which is strictly my opinion that it's the best era) would be the NES.

 

Why? Because, it was with the NES that the transition happened between "one room" games and between world wide mission games. That and it was also the era where bitmapping took over as the dominant programming form over text based characters....

 

I think we just entered Gen 2 of the modern era with the dreamcast. The reason is was the first MAJOR improvement on the performance of the systems (I know, I know, the N64... but I didn't think it was that major of a diff over the PS1 and SAT) the dreamcast is the system that pretty much put home gaming in league with arcade gaming and PC gaming. It was also the dreamcast that made the leap into online gaming (nobody bring up X-Band!!!)

 

so, if we were to break it down further, I'd say

 

Golden Era- (Pre-NES) Characterised by Text based characters and one-room games (for the most part)

 

The Pinnacle-(NES-CD-i) Characterised by bitmap rendered graphics, and world wide mission games.

 

The Transition-(1993-1997) The period between the release of the 3DO and the demise of the SNES where both styles had a real prescence simutaniously

 

The 3D Era-(3DO-N64) Marked by the dominance of 3D polygon based games and a marked deficit of 2D games. This was probably the biggest change to date in the world of video games.

 

The Arcade Killing/Online Era-(Dreamcast to "Current Era") This was the era where the graphics and depth quality of games met or surpassed the arcade and rivaled the PC for the first time in the history of games and it was also the first time online gaming was really taken seriously.

 

My prediction is that the next gen of consoles will set their performance aim on CGI workstations (that made Final Fantasy) and will all be in high definition and that the games will almost entirely be web-based......

[Towelie]

Any systam that does not have games released for it by major game publishers is classic.

[Adrian M]

I remember having this same debate on RGVC, and without looking up my last post on the subject I think I came to almost this exact conclusion:

 

Well, my take (being an old schooler):

 

FUN---------------* Vintage: Anything before 1978

Great/Classic---* Old School/Classic: 1979-1984

Not bad----------* Golden Era: 1985-1993

Mostly crappy---* Modern Era: 1994-1998

What games?---* Next Gen: 1999-today

 

OK, I admit there are some modern fun games, but for me, modern was SNES and Genesis. Classic was pre-crash...

(NES is grandfathered into classic (Tho I've waffled on that one.. in the end, it feels classic, even tho I didn't have an NES as a kid), as is the 7800 being on the crash border)

 

My only complaint is the phrase "Golden" as it seems to signify the best. I have more fun with Classic gaming systems.

 

IMHO

 

desiv

 

desiv,

your chart is perfect! Exactly how I'd rate the various eras (me being an old school long-time gamer and all)!

1994 -2001 were truly the "dark days" for gaming as a whole. Interestingly enough, the Playstation, PS2, Saturn, 32X and DC all came out during that time span!

[Zaxxon]

Classic is pre-crash. NES isn't classic, no matter when you were born. That's also when the arcades started to really suck.

[Outlaw X]

I'd say the transition happens directly after the SNES/Genesis era... because right after that era it seemed to me as though the developers put everything into graphics and very little into the playability. It seemed like they were thinking "Hmmm....those kids will be so hypnotized by this 3D driven graphics world, they'll fail to notice this game sucks...ha,ha,ha!!!!!!". But hey, thats just my opinion.

[DracIsBack]

For me, it's simple: If it's discontinued, it's a classic. The newest is the Dreamcast.

 

Otherwise, it gets weird, especially when you get into the 194-1988 era consoles. Ex.

 

I've seen people say "The Atari 7800 is a classic, but the NES is post-classic".

 

Why?

 

The response is that the 7800 was ready to go in 1984, but held back. OK.

 

But then, the NES, was released in Japan in 1983.

 

And both were still in active production in 1990.

 

To many weirdities like that. So, to me, if they're discontinued by the manufacturer, they qualify as "classic".

[DracIsBack]

Classic is pre-crash. NES isn't classic, no matter when you were born.

 

The NES was out in pre-crash in Japan as the Famicom. So was the Sega Master System as the Mark III.

 

But then again, the Atari 2600 (which crashed) was in production post crash, with post-crash conversions of arcade titles like IKARI WARRIORS.

[dougy76]

My opinion is a mix between MegManFan's pre-1993 and desiv's post-1993 which would be:

 

* Vintage: Anything before 1978

* Old School/Classic: 1979-1984

* Golden Era: 1985-1993

* Mostly crappy Era: 1994-1998

* Even more crappy Era: 1999-today

[ubersaurus]

Most people will give you the "3 generations ago" or the "10 years ago from release" rule as to whether or not a console is classic or modern.

 

I mean, you can't call the SNES or Genesis modern anymore, they're just too outdated. You could, however, still call the n64, ps1, and saturn modern, even though they're fast showing their age.

[sku_u]

I tend to break down gaming by generation rather than classic/modern:

 

1st TV games (Pong, etc...) ca. mid 1970s

1st Generation (VCS, Odyssey2, Astrocade etc.) ca. late 1970s-early 1980s

2nd Generation (5200, Colecovision, etc.) ca. mid 1980s

3rd Generation (NES, SMS, etc.) *Post Crash* ca. mid-late 1980s

4th Generation (Jaguar, Genesis, SNES, etc.) ca. late 1980s-early 1990s

5th Generation (PSX, N64, etc.) ca. mid-late 1990s

6th Generation (PS2, Gamecube, etc.) ca. tail-end 1990s-today)

7th Generation (PS3) TBD

 

I put down approximate dates because there are always exceptions. I only actively collect up to the 3rd Geberation of games. For everything after that I pick up the systems and games that I'll play, but have no plans to collect for.

 

When it comes to Arcade games, it's much easier for me to deliniate:

 

1900-1990s Pinball and other coin operated amusements

1970s Pong and early Arcade games

Late 1970s-1984 The Golden Age of Arcade video games

1985-1990s--The Decline of the Arcade.

[sku_u]

My opinion is a mix between MegManFan's pre-1993 and desiv's post-1993 which would be:

 

* Vintage: Anything before 1978

* Old School/Classic: 1979-1984

* Golden Era: 1985-1993

* Mostly crappy Era: 1994-1998  

* Even more crappy Era: 1999-today

 

The only problem with having definite years is that you get a tremendous amount of overlap. The VCS debuted in time for Christmas of 1977 and games were released for the system through the early 1990s for example. Is that Vintage, Classic or Golden Era by those standards?

[birdie3]

I think a better question would be:

 

"When did the video game industry achieve perfection?"

 

Most people who follow this sort of thing, especially the ones who have been around since it's inception, will likely say sometime between 1982 and 1984. A person's age and taste may influence their answer I suppose. Even today's modern era games can arguably trace many of their roots back to this point in the evolution of video games.

 

As far as the original question is concerned, I would have to say that "classic" video games are ones that were original for the time period they existed in and all others there after have immitated (ie: Pong, Pac Man, Defender, Super Mario Bros., etc..). The generational categorization of video games would also be a fair and accurate way of depicting "eras" in video games since they have had a tendancy to evolve that way historically.

[Atari_Worshipper]

I don't mean to be arrogant, but I think that says it all....

 

The Golden Era: (pre-NES) characterized by text based graphics and mostly one room games.

 

The Pinnacle: (NES-CD-i) herralded in the age of bitmapped graphics and world wide missions, also saw the introduction of CD-Rom into gaming. (though cartridges still dominated)

 

The 3D Era: (3DO-N64) Marked by the dominance of 3D polygon based, real-world environment games with scant few 2D games. Also saw the CD-Rom's rise to dominance (though cartridges endured on non-portables for this one last season) ***I think this, to date is the biggest change to happen to the industry***

 

The Death of the Arcade/Rise of the Online Era: (Dreamcast to present) this was the era where console systems graphics and depth quality and interactive quality of games for the first time ever in the history of games beat out the arcade and almost beat out the PC.... the dreamcast is what really spelled the end for the arcade. The Dreamcast was also the first SERIOUS attempt at online gaming, and now the X-Box is living the dream.

 

You may change the names of the generations on my breakdown list, but my breakdown list is the most accurate in my opinion because it covers all of the biggest moments of the industythe biggest moments in the history of video games: 1)the beginning, 2) bitmap graphics and world missions 3) 3D and 4) The end of the arcade and the beginning of online.... name those changes what you will, but THEY are the moments where the world of video games truely changed, they were the start of a new era.........

 

also, to those who are trash talkin the new school: While I agree in that I prefer old school to new school, I disagree that new school is garbage. That is useless "group think" and I will defend new school to the death (not litterally)... there are some incredibly fantastic games out there for the 3D systems. There's also a lot of garbage, but there always has been. And it is impossible to state objectively that the ratio is less gold and more crap for the new games than it is for the old games.

 

There are two ways to look at it... Subjective and Objective. Which you prefer, which is more fun, the ratio to gold/garbage, those are all subjective and therefore, strictly opinion and entirely, completely, and wholly "un-factable".

 

Now, how can I say that and still carry on the 16-bit wars and my contention that the SNES is superior without making a hypocrite of myself? Because with new vs. old games, we're talking about subjectives. With the hardware components of the SN/SG, we're talking about objectives. Big difference...

 

So, from a subjective standpoint, it's all a matter of opinion though I will sympathise with the old school gamers. I don't like new school as well as old school. But we haven't looked at it from an objective standpoint. From an objective standpoint you consider what the game has to offer in technical merits. (how good the graphics are, how large the games are, how in depth the games are as far as your interaction with them, etc.) and from an objective perspective, the old games cannot compete with the new ones...

 

from a subjective perspective, the winner is underterminable (though, again, I prefer old), but from the objective perspective, not only does the new school win, it cuts the old's head off, eats it, craps it out, shoots it with a bazooka 100 trillion times, has a marching band with elephants march over it, burns it, pours salt on it, spits on it, pisses on it, scoops it up, puts it in a rocket which shoots up into space then detonates fireworks style. Though I admit Subjective is a higher god than Objective.

 

And let me reiterate that funfactor cannot be determined objectively, only subjectively.

 

fun is subjective

 

fun is subjective.

 

I am technically an old schooler ONLY because I prefer the old to new overall. I do NOT sympathise with the old-schoolers who say the new is garbage.... people in general have a TERRIBLE, TERRIBLE habit of proclaiming that anything newer then what they grew up with is garbage. They only think that cause they can't relate with it as well, it is foreign to them. And we as humans also fear what we don't understand, hate what we fear, refuse to admit we're simply slipping away and blame everything else instead... most people think that the world itself is going to hell and I think they're wrong too.... the world doesn't change for better or worse overall, it just changes....

[sku_u]

From an objective standpoint you consider what the game has to offer in technical merits. (how good the graphics are, how large the games are, how in depth the games are as far as your interaction with them, etc.) and from an objective perspective, the old games cannot compete with the new ones...  

 

I was more or less right with you until here. When considering the technical merits of modern games vs older games, one must take into consideration the technology available at the time those games were created.

 

I do think that it is possible to debate the merits of old/new from a less subjective angle without allowing fanboyism to take over.

 

BTW, welcome to the site.

[Atari_Worshipper]

BTW, welcome to the site.

 

thank you.

[Atari_Worshipper]

When considering the technical merits of modern games vs older games, one must take into consideration the technology available at the time those games were created.  

 

I disagree... sure, they had more limited systems to work with, and it could be argued that they utilized a higher percentage of the system's resources back then (of which I have no opinion either way) but that doesn't change the fact that the games do have better graphics and more in depth games with more side quests etc. and more features and more complicated controls (first one is always, the other ones are usually)

 

so, while the new ones may or may not be utilizing less of the system they're on, they're still giving more either way.... so objectively, new games are better.... but it really is subjective that counts, and again, that's opinionary.

[JayC]

I remember having this same debate on RGVC, and without looking up my last post on the subject I think I came to almost this exact conclusion:

 

Well, my take (being an old schooler):

 

FUN---------------* Vintage: Anything before 1978

Great/Classic---* Old School/Classic: 1979-1984

Not bad----------* Golden Era: 1985-1993

Mostly crappy---* Modern Era: 1994-1998

What games?---* Next Gen: 1999-today

 

 

desiv

 

I would have to disagree how you rate the games. I think a lot of people who hate modern games are mostly adults who compair it to their warm feelings of nostalgia from being a kid to the colder world of being grown up. Infact I am going to go on to say that games have improved in quality and playability the newer they get. It is easy to look back and remember the good games of the day, but if you look back, bad games will always outnumber good games. Infact one of my favorite systems is the Sega Dreamcast, and according to some in this topic, would be classified as worthless for games. I have also really gotten into Max Payne and GTA3 on my PC which was released in the modern day. With that said, I really like the classics as well. One of my all time favorite games is the original Legend of Zelda and I still on occasion pull out my C64 for some old school gaming goodness. The bottom line is a good game is a good whether it was released 25 years ago or released last month. I wouldn't doubt that 10-20 years down the road we will have people talking about how Xbox, GC, PS2 were the greatest systems, and everything after it sucked only because of their warm and fuzzy feelings playing them when they were younger.

[birdie3]

Like I said earlier, I think that people who have witnessed this phenomenon from it's inception will have more biased opinion in comparison to the people who joined in later on. Imagine being a really bored youngster growing up in the Seventies and then all of a sudden this concept right out of an Isaac Asimov book is actualized and people are introduced to machines that process information at unfathomable speeds that allow extreme enetrtainment like never before. Pretty cool, huh?

 

Now, look at it like this:

 

better video games = bigger profits for the industry

 

 

Many of the games of today are products of 30 years of this equation being studied and experimented with by very resourceful corporations. At this point I will draw a parallel with the notion that "Rock and Roll is dead". Hopefully I am being clear with this because I find these two art forms to be quite similar in many ways.

[gamerz]

My line is:

 

Classic - Atari

Whatever- Anything Else