I’m by no means an Analogue fanboy, but the Analogue Pocket would be my pick. The screen filter/emulation on the super-high-res screen, super low latency, portability with dockable functionality, retro form factor, and it covers all the systems that are “retro” in my mind (pre-PS1). I think others may prefer a Steam Deck or Odin or other more powerful handheld to emulate better systems or have more seamless save states.
Since 10 y.o. is old enough to be a cutoff for me, PS Vita, and because modding community never stopped. You can even play some Android and PC games through wrappers in it. *-*
Super Nintendo, or SNES. The Mario and Zelda games were great, and so was Mario Kart, but there were loads of great third party games too, like Castlevania and Super Probotector (Contra?).
Is the PS2 old enough yet to be considered retro? That would be my pick, if so.
I dont want to accept it however I’m pretty sure that it is considered retro. I would also pick ps2 not only does it have an massive library of games but there are alot of insanely good ones
Yeah, some of my favorites of all time are PS2 games. Plus, not only does it have a huge library on its own, but it can play PS1 games as well
What counts as retro these days anyway? It still kind of blows my mind that some people consider the PS3 / 360 retro now.
I can understand the PS360 argument. It was probably the last generation where most games were actually playable off the disc without a bunch of patches.
With how common DLC and stuff was becoming that generation, though, I feel like it’s sort of a soft boundary for retro. I can equally accept retro being anything before the PS360, or before/including that generation.
I don’t look forward to the days where “retro gaming” refers to “any console with physical releases at all”.
It doesn’t feel right to count that generation as retro, for reasons like GTA 5, which was initially released for those consoles, yet it’s still considered a current game, with no significant overhaul beyond graphical fidelity. It’s the greatest example of how games haven’t drastically evolved since then.
Compared to the jump from SNES to N64 and PS1, or from PS1 to PS3, we haven’t had any major breakthrough, just moderate incremental improvement.
I’m not sure that means much. Many really old games hold up from like the SNES or PS2.
I agree that it doesn’t feel right, but I can understand the justification, haha
“Retro gaming” is a pretty broad description, anyways. There were probably people who didn’t want to include the 3D consoles, and even those who didn’t want to include cartridge-based consoles, haha
I mean it makes sense, I remember around 2006 everyone referred to the SNES as “retro” and no one questioned it. That’s a smaller time gap than 360 era to now.
For sure, though I think a couple of things make it weird to me. Games changed a lot more in that early period, I think. Plus a lot of games in the PS3 / 360 era seem to just get rereleased slightly differently every few years which kind of makes it seem like we never left that generation.
That is true, it was the first truly modern console generation.
Ultimately I think retro gaming is rooted in nostalgia. People will always gravitate to the consoles they grew up with, making them “retro.” Probably why those rereleases do well.
I’m curious to see what happens in 10-15 years when games-as-a-service hits that point, and how the retrogaming community deals with that. With games like Halo 3 being a stretch now, I can’t imagine a world where Fortnite and Super Mario World exist in the same category.
