From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Video games (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Retrogaming:

Classic Games Graphics[edit]

"Classic games were developed in a time when graphics were not very good" - the "not very good" part is simply wrong (as the graphics COULD be good, the thing they could NOT be is high quality). Also it is definitely not NPOV, how about changing the wording to "of a low quality" or something similar? ?-- 23:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. However, I think even "low quality" would be rather ambiguous and silly. Compare to this: "it is not possible to create high-quality oil paintings", or "it is not possible to play high quality music with a piano because its capabilities in sound generation are more limited than today's synthesizers." Perhaps we just want to state that the old systems posed more limitations on the amount of colors and pixels and the complexity of rendering algorithms compared to today's systems, and this often gave a special outlook to the graphics that was made. --Viznut 07:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
...and actually, the whole sentence containing "graphics were not very good" is just wrong. Games definitely did try to appeal to the audience with graphics already in the 70s (with innovations such as the use of pixel-based shapes, color, etc). And already in the late 80s, there were many magazine articles that criticized the trend of focusing mainly on graphics instead of originality or gameplay. Perhaps the whole sentence can be removed. --Viznut 08:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
"Not very good" by today's standards, perhaps. Back when those games were new they were incredible. Remember when the Playstation was released? It had amazing graphics for its time, and now they are regarded as rubbish. As time marches on, so does technology, and so do peoples' expectations. --bicostp 02:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Someone's put "This game is part of the retrogaming phenomenon" on loads of articles about old games, even though those games have no particular connection to retrogaming; they are just old games. I've tried to remove this where I've found it. I think the person just wanted to link them all here, but that should be done with a template or category, not irrelevant text in the article. (talk) 23:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


A serious re-write of this entire article is required to bring it up to modern standards. The areticle was rated as Start class nearly three years ago but I would now consider it to be stub-class (anybody agree?) due to the lack of references, and the one reference that is on the page is irrelevant to the article's subject matter.

This is a task that could well be handled by the Retro Games task force, but any editor should fee free to try to improve the article. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 21:15, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal[edit]

  • Against There's no reason to merge this or the several others tagged for merge by a new editor who created a new almost entirely WP:OR topic based article that most likely will be deleted. These articles discuss a game genre and not a "type of gamer". --Marty Goldberg (talk) 18:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Against The subject is notable in itself. In fact I was planning to start adding notes of journals relating entirely to the subject (see Retrogames) - quite a proof of notability. --Muhandes (talk) 14:41, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Sidenote: WP:MM? You skipped some steps. --Muhandes (talk) 14:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Article description and cover art picture[edit]

"Foreveralonism" stems from the internet meme "Forever alone" and is badly biased against "retro gamers" as well as practically not used anywhere on the internet. A google search for "foreveralonism" shows about 50 results, one of the first few of them returning the user to this article. Replacing it with "classic gaming" - as written before "foreveralonism" - seems logical.

The game "Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare" can hardly be considered a retro game; it was released in 2007, uses 3-dimensional graphics and was released for gaming consoles like, amongst others, Playstation 3 and XBox 360. I suggest deleting this picture from the article. (talk) 06:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Isolation from human contact?[edit]

"Retrogaming is often linked to, although not the same as, indie gaming (the hobby of playing games that are not published by any conventional publisher) as well as several types of clinical depression associated with extended isolation from other human contact."

There is no reference to the supposed effects from lack of human contact. While there is evidence for possible negative psychological effects of playing video games, there is no reason for this to be mentioned in an article regarding retrogaming; most controversy focuses on modern games depicting sexuality, violence and action in realistic, 3-dimensional graphics ( (talk) 22:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Retro aspects to modern games?[edit]

I am thinking of Minecraft's pixelly art style here here when I say: aren't there new games created specifically to market to retrogamers which have retro aspects but aren't actually from the time period? and in that case shouldn't the article cover that?

I don't think there's an intentional retrogaming aspect to Minecraft - my opinion was that the blockiness was simply down to making manipulation of the surroundings easy. There are no sources that I know of which would support otherwise. a_man_alone (talk) 18:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Removal of "Old School" by IP editor[edit]

An editor contends that "Old School" is not a valid term for retro games, and has removed it twice, with Draconian statements that any re-insertions are now prohibited. As per Bold Revert Discuss I will start the discussion, and believe that "Old School" is a valid description - here are three links which all use the term when referring to retro games and the topic in general:

a_man_alone (talk) 11:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's dumb slang in my not so humble opinion, but it is certainly reliably cited! It can be qualified in some way, such as by the fact that it is lazily borrowed, generic, street slang that has nothing at all to do with games in specific. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 19:45, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Just as well we go by verifiability, not truth then. Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:10, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I just meant that editors can create clarity, and soften the distasteful, by way of combining multiple policies (such as that one) and/or by utilizing more robust prose. In other words, making use of qualifying phrases and alternate points of view. The fact that it was qualified by saying that the phrase is more common in the US is a start in that direction, however flimsy. :) — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 21:21, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
However, someone has just apparently confused me with the aforementioned IP editor, failed to comprehend my changes and reverted them, all while abusing their edit comments in order to pretend to conduct a mockingly one-way personal faux-discussion in a way that's out of band of this discussion, and which is hypocritical to the stated purpose of their very own edit comments. I obviously didn't remove the phrase; I just copy edited its undue weight (WP:RSUW) along with everything else that I copy edited and cleaned up in the article. Before my edits today, the phrase "old school" had a position of absurd prominence, being constantly reiterated in a way that no phrase should except possibly the actual title of the article -- which is titled as such, both because it is actually notable and is the most common vernacular, as I'm sure various Wikipedia policies indicate. That's not just about the fact that it's aimlessly generic slang that isn't notable in itself, but that the actual prose is written in subpar quality. I just brought it down to a normal level. I'm not a part of this problem whatsoever, and I obviously have no argument against it, as I said. The only reason I posted in this thread at all was just an idle comment to support the position of the guy who started the topic, unrelated to my own work! So it is incumbent upon the aforementioned editor to apologize and immediately revert their reversions in order to return that particular issue back to its optimal state, thanks. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 21:37, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
You removed the sourced phrase right here, and I reverted it right here. Claims to the contrary are hard to uphold, ("I obviously didn't remove the phrase") when edit history is plainly available, and you even link to the reversion showing that you removed it yourself. There was no confusion over whether you are the IP editor or not, the intent was to point out that the removal of the term had already been attempted and contested, by showing that it was a sourced and cited.
No apology is forthcoming, because while you have a "not so humble opinion", it is unsourced, whereas I instead rely on external sources to back up my claims that the term "old school" is prevalent in the retrogaming community. Look, here's some more:
A heady mix of links from sales, to reviews to blogs - all using the term "old school" as a descriptive term for the type of gameplay.
Finally, I'm not sure what you mean by "to support the position of the guy who started the topic", because I'm pretty sure the guy who started the topic quite obviously supports the inclusion of the term "Old school". Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:50, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


is it really neccesary to list every single console, and a handfull of publishers in the "games" section? also the "legtal issues surrounding..." section is about emulation, not specifically retro gaming69.178.112.95 (talk) 09:34, 9 May 2017 (UTC)


Perhaps something useful in this source from 1999

  • Lee, Jennifer 8 (July 22, 1999). "Living the 8-Bit Dream in a 32-Bit World". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331.

(not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 18:37, 6 January 2019 (UTC)