Jagfest_UK wrote:Your post is so full of fail I actually don't know where to start.
The Atari 2600 is still being made in the form of the Flashback so what the hell does that mean?
How long a machine is produced for is totally irellevant.
If you read my posts properly you will see I did answer your question. I will never consider those systems retro because of the style of games that appear on them.
I already explained my stance on the Dreamcast.
Grasping at straws. those were continued runs from the original hardware and were remodelled but still used the original hardware. The Flashback was put into production years after the originals and are the same as Famiclones ( Nes on a chip style ) that can be in no way considered original hardware models.
The style of games is irrelevant.
Retrospective - To look back at places that have already took place. which by the literal sense and taking the actual meaning of the word then any discontinued console is in fact Retro. Whether you like it or not.
Retro - designating the style of an earlier time. Making many many games made ( megaman 9 and 10 for example ) true retro games. Again using literal meaning of the word.
I believe that The guys at Retro gamer have covered both of these arguments before and have used it ( justifably so ) as arguments for including certain games in the magazine.
Its obvious that you dislike the focus shift to 3D games and analogue sticks, thats fine and I actually completely understand where you are coming from. The problem is, that you are using your personal preferences and trying to twist the retro argument into your way of thinking to only include what you like, despite evidence to the contrary.
Fine, Tell everyone your favored period of gaming stops at a certain point, but dont try and say that anything after that is not retro just because you dont like them. Which is basically what you are trying to do.