By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - We are living in the best era for gaming

Bofferbrauer2 said:
Mnementh said:

Yeah, but that's kinda the point. Back in the day there were not much indies if at all. There is much more variety in the gaming industry - once we stop looking only at the big ones.

And this is where you're wrong. They just gained much more prominence, but back then, there were also tons of indie developers. The reason the indies gained so much more prominence over the last 15 years is because they continued making games with genres/themes that the publishers didn't want to touch anymore as they got more and more risk-averse. But that doesn't mean they just emerged back then, what changed is their visibility.

Even if you're right, this shows how much better market is now. Before, indies needed physical distribution, the odds of them succeeding were close to noexistent. Getting global release? Forget it 

How many 90s indie games turned to be classics? I can't think any



Around the Network

I agree to some extent. There are more games than ever, even if there is a lot of shovelware. But there is still so much to do and see.



Lifetime Sales Predictions 

Switch: 144 million (was 73, then 96, then 113 million, then 125 million)

PS5: 105 million Xbox Series S/X: 60 million

PS4: 120 mil (was 100 then 130 million, then 122 million) Xbox One: 51 mil (was 50 then 55 mil)

3DS: 75.5 mil (was 73, then 77 million)

"Let go your earthly tether, enter the void, empty and become wind." - Guru Laghima

Ultimately, I think I would agree, but not for any of the reasons stated. I guess it might sort of go in with number 1. Right now, we have access to all current games. But we also have unprecedented access to all the great old games as well. For the most part, it has never been easier or cheaper to get a hold of whatever classic game you are looking for. So even if modern trends kind of suck, at least we can get old stuff much easier now.



Switch Code: SW-7377-9189-3397 -- Nintendo Network ID: theRepublic -- Steam ID: theRepublic

Now Playing
Switch - Super Mario Maker 2 (2019)
Switch - Bastion (2011/2018)
Switch - Mario Kart 8 Deluxe (2014/2017)
3DS - Pushmo (2011)
Wii U - Darksiders: Warmastered Edition (2010/2017)
Mobile - The Simpson's Tapped Out and Yugioh Duel Links

theRepublic said:

Ultimately, I think I would agree, but not for any of the reasons stated. I guess it might sort of go in with number 1. Right now, we have access to all current games. But we also have unprecedented access to all the great old games as well. For the most part, it has never been easier or cheaper to get a hold of whatever classic game you are looking for. So even if modern trends kind of suck, at least we can get old stuff much easier now.

This sums up my opinion pretty nicely. 



I disagree, the best era was end of the 90's to early 2000s

Mostly because of the arcades which were fun, I actually just bought recently an arcade with over a thousand games to relieve those golden days.

The era with the dreamcast was the best ever, we had fun games, that were focused on gameplay and fun. Nowadays we have to worry if we even find a console to buy, or big installation times, big downloads and updates and bugs, and gaming is just focused on business, its all turned into a big mcdonalds, corporations charging 70 British pounds for games that used to be 45 pounds before. Games that wont work offline, I cant even restart a career in GT7, imagine that in 98 I could do just that on GT1.

Then there's no more fun of going to you local arcade place with friends and hangout there. And there's no more new stuff, everything is either a sequel, a remake/remaster or a copy of something else, pick any game, horizon forbidden west, assassins creed, resident evil, anything.

Gaming has gotten better graphics and all that, but the joy is half gone. It seems that single player games you only play to pass the story, to finish the game, where in those old days games were played for fun, not to finish them.

Gaming was exciting back then, imagine having something totally new as in metal gear, and resident evil, tomb raider, sonic adventure, pikmin, crazy taxi, shenmue and many more, it seemed that each game was something new, fresh, different and exciting, these days you just feel that you've played these games before.



Around the Network
Mnementh said:
mZuzek said:

For me it's a pretty simple way to look at it. Everyone here saying 90's was the best time. Plenty of great games back then. There have also been great games in the 2000's, and in the 2010's, and we're still getting great games now. Every game that has been released is playable now. In the 90's you didn't have any of the great games that came out since. Thus the present day will always be the greatest era.

...But yes I was more excited about the future when I believed it'd bring a Guardians of the Galaxy sequel.

The future will bring a Guardians of the Galaxy reboot - in 50 years or so. And that will turn into a trilogy.

Even if that were to happen, it doesn't matter. I wanted a proper sequel with the same creative team behind the game, because they created something special and worth continuing. It's not just about making something with the same brand name. And even if they were to try their best at making something special and creative just like Eidos did, it still won't scratch the itch for a sequel to the Eidos game.

In any case, obviously I know there will be more games with the Guardians name in the future. It's inevitable. I also feel like at some point after the third film they're gonna make more movies, either as a reboot or remake or weird sequel a la Star Wars or something. But the same thing applies. It's the people behind the project that matter, not the name.

Edit: I mean if we look at it this way, Marvel's Guardians of the Galaxy isn't even the first game in the IP. There was the Telltale game a few years before. You don't see me asking for a sequel to that one, but I liked it. It was good, but... It wasn't special. It felt like a licensed game, you know? Like, let's make a game for this famous IP, gotta check all the boxes, play it safe, follow all the tropes people expect. The Eidos game was nothing like that, it was special and it deserved more.

Last edited by mZuzek - on 08 July 2022


I make music, check it out here on Bandcamp, Spotify, and Youtube!

I overall agree though for the 2nd point I'm mixed on it since patches can encourage releasing something unfinished and can even end up making a game worse which sucks when the earlier version of it is inaccessible. Patches are still overall a good thing but the negatives are unfortunate.



IcaroRibeiro said:
Bofferbrauer2 said:

And this is where you're wrong. They just gained much more prominence, but back then, there were also tons of indie developers. The reason the indies gained so much more prominence over the last 15 years is because they continued making games with genres/themes that the publishers didn't want to touch anymore as they got more and more risk-averse. But that doesn't mean they just emerged back then, what changed is their visibility.


How many 90s indie games turned to be classics? I can't think any

Doom. Cave Story. Duke Nukem. Countless PC games that would spawn into big franchises. Just about every PC game in the 80s was indie and were sold at local shops in ziplock bags with dot matrix printed instructions on a 5 inch floppy.



Bite my shiny metal cockpit!

Leynos said:
IcaroRibeiro said:

How many 90s indie games turned to be classics? I can't think any

Doom. Cave Story. Duke Nukem. Countless PC games that would spawn into big franchises. Just about every PC game in the 80s was indie and were sold at local shops in ziplock bags with dot matrix printed instructions on a 5 inch floppy.

Interesting, never get to know those games were indies (when originally released)



Mnementh said:

Yeah, but that's kinda the point. Back in the day there were not much indies if at all. There is much more variety in the gaming industry - once we stop looking only at the big ones.

This isn't true. A few decades ago the cost of making a game was within the ballpark of what a current indie developer could do today (even less, actually). The most famous example of this I think would be Doom. Three guys started up a software company, id Software. Their first game was created by just four people and created in just three months (meaning it likely didn't cost much money). There first few games were published by Apogee Software, but they were never bought out or anything. After a few titles they were able to start self-publishing their own works, starting with Doom (made by five people within nine months). There are many other stories such as this (Insomniac, Epic Games, Bungie, Blizzard, etc)

Basically, back in the 80's and 90's indie development was a significant portion of the market. Very popular developers today were getting their very humble begins as independent developers well into the PS1 era (Valve, Bioware, Treyarch, Gearbox Software, etc). Most of these companies were created by a handful of people with very modest budgets. The definition of "indie" just didn't exist because it didn't need to. Most developers (or at least a large sum of them) were already independent. 

When games became to huge to develop many companies started getting purchased because they just couldn't afford to do otherwise. Eventually the indie label started showing up because most developers were no longer independent. 

Also, I wouldn't be so confident in saying we have so much more variety in the gaming industry. We have more developers than ever, but way less publishers. Embracer group alone owns like 103 studios. It's the publishers that really get control over a product. 

Last edited by Doctor_MG - on 09 July 2022