I was on Twitter recently and found there’s a section where they categorize discussions. Then I saw people were discussing if the PS3 was a retro console. I thought this debate was silly and very obvious.

For me the PS3 is almost twenty years old, how couldn’t it be a retro console? There were some nitpicking the definition of retro since it hasn’t been 20 years yet. What does 18 round to?

There were some that used the excuse of that the NES wasn’t called retro in the early 2000s? Yet it was, It originally came out in 1983.  They even had the NES and arcade game collections coming to N64 with 15 or 20 games on a cartridge.

There was another argument of it’s about looks for it to be call it retro. Which it’s been almost twenty years since it came out. Yes the looks of something should capture the era and it does. Most designs of the late 90s and 2000s look timeless. 

Another comment I kept seeing was a strange one. It’s not retro because games feel the same today. That doesn’t take away the fact it’s retro. It could mean there’s stagnation in gaming or we hit a point of diminishing returns with gameplay.

Another question I  have is why isn’t this argument about the Xbox 360? It’s older than the PS3 and has more aspects that could be called retro. For example it initially didn’t have HDMI just regular AV and component. Is it because you can play a lot of the back compat games two generations later? Could it be because the game libraries for both consoles were so good they’re more relevant than the stuff of today?

It’s really hard to believe PS3 is almost twenty. It’s almost like I was in a time capsule and everything aged. I came out the capsule with a 2000s view of gaming. This view could explain issues I have with games today