Looking back, it seems like the 90's and early 2000's were the best time for PC gaming as far as unique and cool games go. Too many PC gamers these days aren't even interested in games like this, Civ, or RTS.
Also, how much would it have cost to run Homeworld in 720p 60 fps back then?
I really feel like a lot of PC games from that era didn't age well. But that's not a bad thing. Just a testament to how well their sequels have improved in recent years. Civ III, and IV would still be perfectly good games, if Civ V and VI didn't blow them out of the water. Same goes for a lot of the older Total War games. I'll get Homeworld Remastered eventually on GoG. From what I've seen it looks to have held up well.
Any Pentium 3 Katimai or Coppermine would have been enough in conjunction with a TNT2 Ultra/Geforce 256... But those were high-end.
A Riva 128+Pentium 2 would have been good for 60fps at a moderate resolution.
I think in general games of that era didn't age well... But 2D games from the likes of StarCraft, Age of Empires, Total Annihilation, Dark Reign, Baldurs Gate did remarkably well over the years due to strong art direction, it wasn't until the PC was pushing towards 1440P/2160P that those games 2D art assets started to look excruciatingly limited... Hence the need for HD remasters.
Games like Battlezone 2, Homeworld, Dungeon Keeper 2 which are full 3D titles have stood the test of time though in my opinion... They were decent graphical powerhouses even back in the day, but the strong art direction has meant they matured fairly well... Certainly far better than the Nintendo 64, Playstation 1 and so on.
Images speak for themselves, none of the consoles were coming anywhere near those PC at the time in 1999. - Dreamcast could have gotten closer than the Nintendo 64 or Playstation 1 though.
I've played Civ3 most then next would be Civ5. Civ3 was bad ass except it was usually turned into stacks of doom. I played user made scenarios most from 3 getting them off Civfanatic. I didn't like 5 that much at first but it grew on me. It was finally fleshed out with the 2 expansions. Currently just 30 hours into 6. I like it but sometimes even though they seemed to dumb it down I find myself just clicking away and skipping info and other shit. Like governors. I put them in city and then just upgrade them when get chance but hardly care or do much with them except if take over far away city then I'll move one to that city to help loyalty and prevent flipping of city back. Sure it beats the random overthrow of cities that you took in 3 which would piss me off if had lots of troops stationed there. It's like there is no fucking way partisans retook the city with my army (tried to not use armies as much because cpu never learned to use them properly in 3) or huge stack sitting in city. It was all about culture and military presence be damn. Anyways I almost had more fun micromanaging cities in 3 than doing most bs in 5 and 6.
I am partial to Alpha Centauri to be honest. Been my favorite "Civ" game so far, still go back to it even today and give it a run! Although after all these years even the highest difficulty isn't as much of a challenge.
Sadly the game wasn't a looker even on release... But that is okay, the gameplay is solid and there is a reason why it's one of the most acclaimed PC titles in history. - I had hoped that Beyond Earth would be closer to Alpha Centauri than Civ... So that was a let down.
I am absolutely happy that I was a PC gamer during the 90's, I got to experience the 3D acceleration revolution and the era when developers were mashing together various concepts to try something new.
Don't know which version of Alpha Centauri you own, but in the GOG release at least, you could create a new faction with many debuffs to give you a new challenge.
While we're at it, what faction do you main?
And yeah, Beyond Earth was a letdown for me, too. It's just not Alpha Centauri.