Re: Old Games For The Win

On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 10:43:28 -0500, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com>
wrote:

On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 08:58:14 -0400, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action, Mike
S. wrote:
>

On Wed, 26 Mar 2025 14:17:23 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson
<spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>

So you might be playing more old games simply because _there are more
old games to play_. ;-)

>
I play more old games because modern big budget games do not appeal to
me. Period. It really is that simple. I lost interest in modern games
around the year 2000 or so. I don't think it is their fault. It is
just a personal preference thing.
>

>
As soon as our "hobby" went to the frat boys and normies - it began
sometime around the point when you didn't have to configure your sound
card addresses, manage your resident programs, and properly configure
IRQs - I knew it was the beginning of the end. But I did make some coin
configuring such people's systems to play, say, Blackthorne. Windows 98
finally ended that source of revenue.
>
It took a while for the inertia of needing to satisfy that audience to
die down. It is now complete. Around when you say, 2015, give or take.
Those days are gone.
>
Very few developers are willing to risk making games that appeal to that
sort of intelligence. The ones that do are all indies. Games are also
more socially oriented, where single player was the established norm for
the tech-oriented audience. We tended to be loners.
>
We aren't the market any more. The PC Master Race is, in fact, dead.

Speak for yourself. I'm pining for the fjords.

[Alternately:
"I'm not dead."
>>    'Ere, he says he's not dead!"
>Yes he is.
"I'm not."
>>     He isn't!
>Well, he will be soon. He's very ill.
"I'm getting better."
>No you're not, you'll be stone dead in a moment. ]


More seriously, while I think to some degree what you say is true, I
think it also ignores a lot of the changes made in the past ten years
too. (that mention of 'geeks vs normies also feels like gatekeeping).
There have been a lot of modern games that have oriented themselves
back towards the desire of the single-player gamer.

True, the triple-A studios continue to push pabulum, but that's less
to cater  specifically to 'normies' (and not the 'intelligent
tech-oriented player') but instead that they have to cater to the
widest possible audience.    The problem isn't so much who
specifically they are appealing but rather that their projects are so
expensive to develop that they can't afford to make a game that only a
small niche would enjoy.   Smaller developers have that luxury (and so
would the triple-A's if they dared consider the benefits of more
numerous, smaller titles).

And, honestly, while there were a host of early-2000s games that were
absolutely terrible and catered to the "frat-bro" mentality (yeah, I'm
looking right at you, "Gears of War"!), there were an equal number of
terrible geek-oriented games in the 1990s that are just as
cringeworthy. Frankly, the game industry desperately needed to break
out of that niche, and I think nowadays is much better for it (Geeks
can be just as offensively stupid outside of their particular niches
as 'normies'). There's a much wider spectrum of viewpoints being
offered these days than ever before, and I'm grateful for it... even
if some of them aren't of any interest to me.


But what can I say, I'm an ultra-geek myself and own an IDIC medallion
;-P