Golden age of PC gaming...I was 18 in 1993

Shikami

Gawd
Joined
Apr 5, 2010
Messages
792
Yeah I picked up D2 and Icewind Dale on the same day when they came out. I played so much of both of them that week, that all the clicking took its toll and I had to rest my hand for a couple days.

Man, that was a good day I remember well. I decided to go to the mall....lol...yeah the mall and see if there was anything happening. I walked around and made a pass by Babbage's and noticed the display had Icewind Dale and Diablo II. I was so excited!! Got an extra copy of both for me and my friend who was working at that time. Went to his work place and dropped off the games and couldn't wait to meet up online. Hmmn, beers, and good games.

It seems that many had as equally as found of memories of those times; and very similar. I still think, how often do you get games released in succession like that? Nothing like not knowing the release date, and just passing by to happen upon them on the day of release....ahhh, natsukashii.

Although, my favorite story to tell was when I introduced a friend to System Shock I. He borrowed it and liked it so much that he showed the game to some interesting fellows. That happened to be the band Gwar. Apparently, they all gamed hard and stayed up a week of heavy gaming to finish it. Liked that it was well borrowed, and taken cared of when I got it back.
 

piratepress

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Feb 15, 2002
Messages
1,533
I was 25 in '93 and have been playing video games as far back as I can remember. I recall playing a beta of Doom during Thanksgiving '93 and recognizing how it was a turning point in gaming.

I loved that "Golden Age" but am equally excited by games today like Cyberpunk with RTX. The improvement in graphics continues to be the drug that fuels my obsession with PC gaming and the versatility of the platform is why I'll never own a console.
 

imsirovic5

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jun 21, 2011
Messages
215
I think the golden age of PC gaming is heavily dependent on our age. Back when I was in my early teens in early 90s everything was fresh and new on my Amiga 500 / 1200. But as time went on and as I grew up, the magic was harder and harder to recreate. When we are young and more impressionable the experiences were more novel. As we age, our brain chemistry changes with most of the wonder and magic of our childhood gone. So in other words, regardless of what games come out in the future, it will be impossible to recreate emotions and wonder of our childhood.
 

Axman

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 13, 2005
Messages
7,532
So in other words, regardless of what games come out in the future, it will be impossible to recreate emotions and wonder of our childhood.
Nope, it was 1985-2005 for the reasons already listed.
 

imsirovic5

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jun 21, 2011
Messages
215
Nope, it was 1985-2005 for the reasons already listed.

I am a million percent sure I would have chosen Cyberpunk 2077 over any early 90s classics when I was in my early teens. It would have been a no brainer. I would have probably been so amazed by Cyberpunk back then that I would probably not sleep until I finished it. I am sure I am not the only one.
 

Axman

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 13, 2005
Messages
7,532
Are you trying to say that a game that caters entirely to '80s and '90s nostalgia with its complete broken fourth-wall framing narrative title homage to the golden age of PC gaming is proof that the golden era of PC gaming didn't exist?
 

LukeTbk

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 10, 2020
Messages
1,070
I am a million percent sure I would have chosen Cyberpunk 2077 over any early 90s classics when I was in my early teens. It would have been a no brainer. I would have probably been so amazed by Cyberpunk back then that I would probably not sleep until I finished it. I am sure I am not the only one.
I think there is some distinction to make, we do not know yet for example if Cyberpunk 2077 on PS5/Xbox series X will end up significantly different enough than on PC to make it a case here, i.e. golden age of gaming is different than golden age of pc gaming.

If we take the golden age of PC gaming has by how much pc gaming was different and arguably superior to the rest of gaming, if we compare unreal tournament/quake 3 to the shooter available on consoles in those days, Starcraft/Age of Empire 2 to the rts available on console and we can go down the list and outside Gran Turismo and Japanese RPG without ports (or good ports) the delta between PC gaming and console got somewhat vast, that I imagine why it was so easy to Microsoft to enter the market, coding for a pc games got so much easier than for Play station, Sega or nintendo it seem. And because the evolution was so fast, 2 years after a console launch you were 2 generation of video cards and less than half the power than a regular (but high) priced PC.

In 98-00 sports game on PC with a Voodoo 2 or better video cards looked miles better than anything available on console and Internet made roster/patch/online play on PC way easier if it was possible at all to the Nintendo 64/PS1/Sega of the time. In 2020, many sports game do not even bother to make a PC version anymore, we went from much better to nothing at all.

Today you have probably better games than in the past in absolute that usually look a little bit better with more FPS on a highly priced PC than on some console and in some genre like RTS i imagine still a good edge, but the gap do feel smaller.

To take an example, maybe Tyson Fury or Mike Tyson taking a time machine could beat everyone in Ali-Frazier era, but there is no doubt that the Ali-Frazier-Foreman era was the golden age of heavyweight boxing, that the time were the heavyweight boxing champion was among when not the most well known athlete of the planet, the richest one and so on, now a big talented athlete will pick basketball-football before boxing, better in absolute term does not make it the Golden Age, if everything got better around it at a faster pace.

Take a time machine with a 3090 RTX, 5950x pc, with Cyberpunk installed to 1994 and make it try to someone at the same time they tried X-Com Enemy Unknown for the first time and yes I imagine that Cyberpunk would blown their mind completely (but the game looking like that and big like that would not have to be any good either for that to happen)
 
Last edited:

imsirovic5

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jun 21, 2011
Messages
215
Are you trying to say that a game that caters entirely to '80s and '90s nostalgia with its complete broken fourth-wall framing narrative title homage to the golden age of PC gaming is proof that the golden era of PC gaming didn't exist?
Uhm??? Happy holidays ;)
 

Aireoth

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
4,983
Are you trying to say that a game that caters entirely to '80s and '90s nostalgia with its complete broken fourth-wall framing narrative title homage to the golden age of PC gaming is proof that the golden era of PC gaming didn't exist?

Just like you are presenting a subjective (1985-2005) as the greatest gaming ever.

I love my nostalgia gaming, in fact its almost time for my annual romp through mysitical ninja with my brother, but there is no objective golden era of gaming. If there was, its probably today, you have access to all the old titles easily now, there are store fronts like steam that offer not only triple A titles but all kinds of games. There is quite literally something for everyone and its never been easier to weed out the chaff.

Today is the golden age of gaming.
 

LukeTbk

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 10, 2020
Messages
1,070
Today is the golden age of gaming.
But the thread is called the golden age of PC gaming and the post you quoted is talking about the golden age of PC gaming, seem to be some shift going on. Also there seem to be a different shift, one sentence you say there is no objective golden era of gaming to state 2 sentences later that today is the golden age of gaming.

Hollywood and movies golden age was between the early 10s to the 60s (went TV and urban sprawling completely shifted people to another medium), that not mean that movie today are not in absolute better or not easier to access on a streaming platform, or that it was the golden age for content if we add TV in the equation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Axman
like this

Aireoth

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
4,983
But the thread is called the golden age of PC gaming and the post you quoted is talking about the golden age of PC gaming, seem to be some shift going on. Also there seem to be a different shift, one sentence you say there is no objective golden era of gaming to state 2 sentences later that today is the golden age of gaming.

Hollywood and movies golden age was between the early 10s to the 60s (went TV and urban sprawling completely shifted people to another medium), that not mean that movie today are not in absolute better or not easier to access on a streaming platform, or that it was the golden age for content if we add TV in the equation.

Naa your just a constant poor faith contrarian.

You can understand my post, but you chose to argue syntax rather than point. I often wonder if your IdiotinChage's new account.

The point is, golden age is subjective, not objective, the only objective stance possible is today, because today we have easy access to everything, old new, and inbetween. Tomorrow that could change as road blocks could be added, but today you can easily access anything, nes, snes, dos, win 95, Apple, etc. Those road blocks have existed in the past, I have gone through great pains to get obscure pc titles that today I can find with ease.
 

Axman

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 13, 2005
Messages
7,532
Plus today, there's too much pressure on developers to make games that are acceptable to larger agendas. Sure, you can still play older games, but you could never make them right now.

Nobody's arguing that games today have better graphics, better controls, better music, better budgets...they have a completely different set of constraints.
 

Aireoth

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
4,983
Plus today, there's too much pressure on developers to make games that are acceptable to larger agendas. Sure, you can still play older games, but you could never make them right now.

Nobody's arguing that games today have better graphics, better controls, better music, better budgets...they have a completely different set of constraints.
Only if you stick to triple a gaming, which is a lot of peoples problem today.

games today are by and large better than everything but the best of the past. I have all the roms for every system, the number of titles is insane compared to the few worth playing, and its the same for the PC. What is it you feel is missing, and I'll pick out at least one title that does it well.
 

Axman

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 13, 2005
Messages
7,532
Only if you stick to triple a gaming, which is a lot of peoples problem today.
That's not my problem, that's my point. When games were part of the counter-culture developers were mainly constrained by technology. Now that games are mainstream, technical resources aren't a bottleneck, but social considerations (including investment market considerations) are the governors.

What made the late 80's, '90s, and the early '00s so influential and prominent in gaming is because that represents the last of gaming as part of the counter-culture but gaming with decent tech and the money to do more and more.
 

Aireoth

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
4,983
That's not my problem, that's my point. When games were part of the counter-culture developers were mainly constrained by technology. Now that games are mainstream, technical resources aren't a bottleneck, but social considerations (including investment market considerations) are the governors.

What made the late 80's, '90s, and the early '00s so influential and prominent in gaming is because that represents the last of gaming as part of the counter-culture but gaming with decent tech and the money to do more and more.

Your point only works if you stick to triple A games, its like watching only hollywood blockbusters and wondering why movies are all the same these days.

Those games exist today, as good or better than any from those decades, you just have to stop sucking ubisofts/activition/ea/etc cock and venture out.
 

Axman

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 13, 2005
Messages
7,532
Yes, that's the point. You can't just sweep it away and say people just aren't looking hard enough.

And to make matters worse, the titles, worlds, settings, and characters from those games all now belong to the biggest developers, so we can't even get decent sequels. Want more Diablo? Have you considered Grim Dawn? Oh, but you'll want to buy the DLC, it's really what flushes out the game. Or just wait for the Last Epoch. People are already calling the "spiritual successor" to it.

So excited. what a time
 

Sycraft

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Nov 9, 2006
Messages
4,929
Your point only works if you stick to triple A games, its like watching only hollywood blockbusters and wondering why movies are all the same these days.

Those games exist today, as good or better than any from those decades, you just have to stop sucking ubisofts/activition/ea/etc cock and venture out.
And to amplify your point: It isn't like these little titles are lost treasures, only known to a few. Shovel Knight is HUGE. All kinds of press, available on every digital platform, 3 million copies sold, etc. Among Us is practically the only thing people want to stream these days hand has north of 40 million downloads. There's plenty of market and plenty of sales of smaller games, including games that are done in classic style. Shovel Knight was designed to look, feel and sound like an NES game down to using the same kind of audio synthesis from the VRC-1 chip.

These days there are games being released in classic styles, including text adventures, all the way up to games that push the bleeding edge of technology, and everything in-between. Digital distribution has freed developers from having to deal with traditional publishers and sales channels meaning that there can be a lot more variety out there. A one man shop can produce something that reaches the world and is a hit, like Undertale.
 

LukeTbk

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 10, 2020
Messages
1,070
Naa your just a constant poor faith contrarian.

You can understand my post, but you chose to argue syntax rather than point. I often wonder if your IdiotinChage's new account.

The point is, golden age is subjective, not objective, the only objective stance possible is today, because today we have easy access to everything, old new, and inbetween. Tomorrow that could change as road blocks could be added, but today you can easily access anything, nes, snes, dos, win 95, Apple, etc. Those road blocks have existed in the past, I have gone through great pains to get obscure pc titles that today I can find with ease.
Golden Age is an semantic and subjective affair like you said thus the importance of talking about the same thing and not shifting back in forth between gaming in general and PC gaming interchangeably, related but a bit different subject.

The fact that you point out to how easy it is now to play all games from Dos to Nes, do seem that your definition of Golden Age you are using is different than the usual historian use of Golden Age.

I am sure it is easier than ever to watch most of the movies ever made, but no one you argue that the golden age of movies is now instead of when the average American went to the movie theater 60 times a year because now we have the Criterion streaming channel, I am sure science has never been has advance in the Arab world than today, nobody would call today the Arab World Scientific golden age over the 800 to 1250s.

Chess players has never been better than today in absolute metric (it is not even close), never been easier to play and learn chess with the Internet, I doubt anyone would argue that the golden age of Chess is long gone and that anything today could come close to capture attention like Bobby Fisher vs the Soviets did, it feel more than some quantic computer could solve and destroy the game at some point now.

Maybe it is easier now to play most arcade game ever made from a single arcade emulating machine in your garage and not at a bad price, we have even nice guide to make it yourself and maybe that in absolute the dance dance revolution and other modern game are the best arcade game ever made and maybe arcade record are still going down, but there is little doubt that the golden age of Arcade gaming was before the home consoles destroyed them.

Now there is 2 argument going for the today (well maybe not 2020 because of covid)
Like you said:
  1. Ease of access
  2. How big the independent world got with the Steam and Gog of the world and how much games always work, no cd key/actual cd or disk to keep around that stop working after a while, to keep your save game over time, it is much easier and comfortable that having different boot configuration for different game in your dos menu or rebooting many time your Windows 95 praying for your GamePad Pro to work this time.
  3. I think overall unadjusted world PC gaming revenues are the highest they ever was

But those seem to be somewhat true of the XBox/Play station with their store as well.

Now another "objective" argument for Golden age of pc gaming being just before the PS2/XBOX were released in the late 90s (if he want for the PC part of that sentence to have a significance):
Desktop pc sales had a peak around that time: https://www.statista.com/statistics...nd-software-store-sales-in-the-us-since-1992/

We had way over 100 millions discrete GPU annual sold around that time.
The delta between the PC gaming experience and the rest of the gaming experience was at it maximum, graphic wise, Internet vs virtually no internet connectivity, the difference in the type of game that was available was still big.

Both era have an argument for the claim of Golden Age of PC gaming. With that said, considering that:
And to amplify your point: It isn't like these little titles are lost treasures, only known to a few. Shovel Knight is HUGE. All kinds of press, available on every digital platform, 3 million copies sold, etc. Among Us is practically the only thing people want to stream these days hand has north of 40 million downloads. There's plenty of market and plenty of sales of smaller games, including games that are done in classic style. Shovel Knight was designed to look, feel and sound like an NES game down to using the same kind of audio synthesis from the VRC-1 chip.
Among Us is an android/iOs game first, Shovel knight nintendo platform/PS4/XBox, the fact that new platform made gaming much bigger that goes to feed PC gaming as well, can be turned into a plus for today era, but I am not sure how fair it is to put in PC gaming multi platform title like that.
 

Sycraft

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Nov 9, 2006
Messages
4,929
Among Us is an android/iOs game first, Shovel knight nintendo platform/PS4/XBox, the fact that new platform made gaming much bigger that goes to feed PC gaming as well, can be turned into a plus for today era, but I am not sure how fair it is to put in PC gaming multi platform title like that.
Well that seems like playing semantic games to try and claim gaming isn't as good these days. "Oh those aren't REAL PC games because they are cross platform!" Ok, well for some other retro games that were hugely successful and PC first there's Terraria, Stardew Valley, Undertale, and more modern retro Disco Eleysium. Yes they all got ported to consoles but they were PC first and it seems VERY silly to crap on it as something bad that the developers expanded their market.

That aside if you want to talk actual non-retro PC exclusives, there's some great ones. Crusader Kings 3, Microsoft Flight Simulator, Rimworld, Factorio, Half Life Alyx. These are all games that have basically universal acclaim (Rimworld being the only one that doesn't have an aggregate score above 90) and are PC only. However really the fact that we see less exclusives these days is a good thing, and is a mark of the lower barrier for entry and ease of porting code. Back in the day writing a game for Genesis, SNES, and PC was totally different. Each platform required not only a new code base but literally different ways of doing things. Now a modern engine like Unity or UE4 can make porting a breeze. So there's no reason for developers to keep things to only one platform. There are titles that had PC as a lead platform like Civ 6 and Xcom 2 that still later came to consoles because why not? They may be PC focused games, but they can be ported easily so they were.

The real metric that should be used is how many good games are coming out for the PC, and the answer is a lot. Better yet, there are lots in different styles. There are games that only appeal to very small subsets of people that can still be a success, at the same time as games that appeal to huge masses and neither has to choke off the other.
 

LukeTbk

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 10, 2020
Messages
1,070
Well that seems like playing semantic games to try and claim gaming isn't as good these days.
To continue in semantic, golden age of PC gaming being a different moment than now is a different claim that gaming isn't as good these days, claiming golden age of cinema ended in the early 60s isn't claiming that movies are not as good these days for example and certainly not claiming that TV/Movie content combined isn't has good day these days (specially that almost all the good movies still exist to be watched, but more easily than ever).

"Oh those aren't REAL PC games because they are cross platform!"
That's not fully the essence of my comment, if they can be gamed has well on a different platform, I am not sure how much they participate to the golden age of PC gaming itself. Take the thought experiment, in the year 3,000 there is not have been we would call PC today for 250 year's, but you can plug your phone on your giant 16K TV head generad screen and for a very cheap price you can play all the PC game ever made and some people do like some people listen to music with 8tracks now (historian of gaming students and some niche hipster), we would call this post PC gaming, not the golden age of pc gaming even if it was the time when the pc game was the easiest to access and the best in absolute term. The subjective experience quality will not be comparable to what it was for those playing at the time, already someone that launch a Star Trail game on dosbox experience does not come anything close to the average enjoyment to someone playing those game in 1994.

They may be PC focused games
Yes that the distinction that would still matter here, even if Crusader Kings is ever ported, that would still be a sit close to a screen to read a lot of text comfortably, play with a mouse game regardless of that and when Flight Sim release on XBOX, the PC possibility in term of multiscreen/VR/DUY cockpit would still make it a different PC games, those are game for which PC is still a relevant distinction and the PC in the sentence PC gaming has still meaning, more than for say Assassin Creed/Cyberpunk. Now how those PC focused game (in budget, popularity and other metrics) compare versus the biggest and "best" games overall today versus some other eras.

The real metric that should be used is how many good games are coming out for the PC, and the answer is a lot. Better yet, there are lots in different styles. There are games that only appeal to very small subsets of people that can still be a success, at the same time as games that appeal to huge masses and neither has to choke off the other.
Quantity isn't the only metric, a mix of metric has to be used, but yes the most important one is the amount and quality of produced game for which PC has a significant relevance, how long people can work on them, budget, creativity.

To put it in a different thought experiment, imagine that in 2033 we are in a second generation of ARM console with a lot of specific and proprietary ASIC running part of homemade game engine that destroy by a significant amount any gaming PC, that console gaming is without a doubt head and beyond PC gaming during the rest of that decade, but that in absolute game made for PC are more numerous (because of how easy they are to make with AI running Unity version 8 of the time) in a even more diverse array of style than now and needless to say you can play in 8K with some modern DSSL/intelligent HDR type making every game ever made look quite better than they were in their time, it could still be considered the dark time of pc gaming, not the golden age.

Maybe the perception will be tainted for the style of game one play, but like I said in what I feel has a claim for the Golden Age, the best way to play EA sports NHL game was on the PC by a good amount, now:
- EA says FIFA 21 on PC won't get the PS5 and Xbox Series X features to keep the minimum specs down
- https://www.wepc.com/news/2k-games-reveals-nba-2k21-on-pc-will-be-current-gen-version/
- https://www.gamespot.com/articles/n...has confirmed that,PlayStation 4 and Xbox One.

That does not feel particularly on the golden age side versus the late 90s.

sfdsf
 

Aireoth

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
4,983
Yes, that's the point. You can't just sweep it away and say people just aren't looking hard enough.

And to make matters worse, the titles, worlds, settings, and characters from those games all now belong to the biggest developers, so we can't even get decent sequels. Want more Diablo? Have you considered Grim Dawn? Oh, but you'll want to buy the DLC, it's really what flushes out the game. Or just wait for the Last Epoch. People are already calling the "spiritual successor" to it.

So excited. what a time

Naa, i'm sweeping you off as a grump old man that nothing today is as good as the thing of yesterday. Grim dawn for example is excellent and its expansions actually expand upon the game, so its a pretty bad example.

I am excited, I have way to many titles to play today. when I gamed in the 90's I always ran out of game and went to do other things.

Luke, I'm just going to ignore your ongoing symantical and goal post babble (multiplatform doesn't count, etc etc) , I hate it on reddit and good bye.
 
Last edited:

Nytegard

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 8, 2004
Messages
3,409
I am excited, I have way to many titles to play today. when I gamed in the 90's I always ran out of game and went to do other things.
When were you playing?

There's two things that come to mind on this. Older games are significantly shorter. Most of my NES, SNES, and PC games at the time could be beaten in under 10 hours. 25-30 hours if really grinding it. And I wonder why it took me weeks, if not months. No internet, no hint books, etc., but I went ahead and looked at my actual playtime on some of my older games. And that's about the times that I was putting into them. Compared to modern games, I wasn't gaming nearly as much as I am currently. Yet years ago, I was considered an uber nerd putting that much time into games, whereas today, my niece and nephews make my previous numbers look amateurish. And all their friends game just as much, if not more.

Modern games also have so much more filler though. A few years ago, I replayed The Secret of Mana. A couple hours in, and I was almost through 5-6 dungeons. Cyberpunk or The Witcher 3 though, and I can go minutes just in travelling. That just didn't happen in older games. With something like the NES Zeldas or Marios, there are always enemies within a screen or two. The action if fast and furious. But because of that, those couple hours feel as if something was accomplished vs modern games with empty vast wastelands of nothingness, where if I don't spend an entire day, it feels like I accomplished nothing in the game.
 

keke

Weaksauce
Joined
Dec 27, 2020
Messages
67
Quake 2 back in 97-98, no doubt about it :)
Fallout 1 & Fallout 2
Warcraft 2 & 3 + Starcraft - countless hours of joy

Commandos - Behind Enemy Lines, Commandos 2 - up to the FPS version

Then Quake III Arena :)
 
Last edited:

LukeTbk

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 10, 2020
Messages
1,070
An other metric for which the 90s feel like an golden age is speed of change, between around 1991 to 2002 we multiply pretty much everything by a factor of 100 or more.

For less money you went from a 20 mhz, 4 meg of ram, 40 megabyte hard drive, 256 colors screens, playing in 320x240 with PC speakers, 10 kbits by second modem, 1.4 megabyte floppy disk to
Pentium 4 3.06 ghz multithread, 1 gig of ram, 160 gig hard drive, 16 millions or even 24 bits color, playing at 1280 x 1024 or 1600x1200, 5-10mbits Internet using steam/blizzard platform to play games, 4.7 gb dvds, with sound card having been popular and now on their way out, gaming with 5.1 sound system.
Went from very basic online play if at all for most to MMOs being a thing.

In 10 year's you had for cheaper, 100-250x time more of everything and games changed around that speed has well, the difference between Doom 1 released in 1993 and Unreal Tournament released in 1999 is just ridiculous or Dune 2 in 1992 and starcraft in 1998/Age of empire 2 1999 an argument that the jump made between that small amount of time is has big has the jump since could be entertain.

And obviously that is not necessarily better for the customer or mean the game were any better (things not to mistake with what a golden age mean), but the speed of innovation was just completely different, there was a lot of lower hanging fruit (for hardware, software and games) and we went from an explosion to more like a log since.
 
Last edited:

Eivind68

Weaksauce
Joined
Jul 27, 2019
Messages
109
Nah, more than half of the big new titles are sequels, prequels, remakes, and spin-offs of the great games from, say, 1985 through 2005. They were crude from gameplay perspectives, graphics, all that, but they took risks that no publisher has the stones (not to mention, financial liabilities) to really follow through with better at-core games made today.

You could literally not make Mortal Kombat today if not for the fact that it already exists. That's true for Super Mario, Final Fantasy, Counter-Strike, Civilization, Grand Theft Auto, and so many others. Oregon Trail, even.

These games were all risky passion projects.
This.
I was 25 in 1993 and had just built my first PC that was overclocked with dip switches by mistake, and the next 10 years were the best for gaming and HW. Hell, I upgraded twice a year and could expect a doubling in performance each time :happy:.
But the games were great too, you could find great games like Battlezone II that mixed genres and weird stuff like Sacrifice that invented its own, both with AAA graphics for their time.
Nowadays your choice is mostly between big publishers chasing the monies by doing the same thing that made money last year, or indie games with more imagination but with pixel art from 1986, because retro is cool and the investment is very low. 😒

And who decided nobody wants to play RTS games anymore?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Axman
like this

Furious Nerd

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 14, 2006
Messages
3,193
I liked 1990s-2005 best. I feel it catered to a more mature audience overall. There are many exceptions, but now companies appear to pander to the lowest common denominator and younger age groups than before and as a result get so much re-hashed formulas and tropes. Too much seen a million times before feeling, not enough originallity and risk-taking.

Politically correct mentality these days doesn't exactly motivate developers and publishers to push the envelope.

It's just a mess outside of indie games, and those are good few and far between.
 

Nytegard

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 8, 2004
Messages
3,409
I liked 1990s-2005 best. I feel it catered to a more mature audience overall. There are many exceptions, but now companies appear to pander to the lowest common denominator and younger age groups than before and as a result get so much re-hashed formulas and tropes. Too much seen a million times before feeling, not enough originallity and risk-taking.

Politically correct mentality these days doesn't exactly motivate developers and publishers to push the envelope.

It's just a mess outside of indie games, and those are good few and far between.
And who decided nobody wants to play RTS games anymore?
Risk taking is one of the things that's easier to do when the company is smaller. And that's one thing I did like about the 80s. Atari and Nintendo both had the premise that games had to be different. It's why Super Mario 2 in the USA was nothing like 1, nor Zelda 2 like Zelda 1. And on the PC, with far more companies, and far fewer users, you got experimentation too.

But it's not what sells. I am mainly an adventure game fan, which was the most popular PC genre in the 80s and early 90s, but considered a dead genre now. It's not that the userbase shrunk. It didn't. And I guess the same with RTSs. Rather, other genres overtook it. Why create a game only 100k people are going to play when you can create a game 10m people are going to play.

As I stated above though, this presents a problem if you're a fan of one of the older genres. You become stuck to indies, which, as you Tyler mentioned, are few and far between. And too much garbage is part of the problem with the 1983 video game crash. But it's also the case now that China is catching up and surpassing the west in terms of userbase. So, sooner or later, more AAA games are going to be focused on what China wants, and we're either going to start to have to accept that and like their tastes, or be left behind. (It's really Asia itself which was the progenitor of the microtransaction and P2W style of gameplay.)
 
Top