The "Golden Age" of PC Gaming? O RLY?

I was intrigued when I read about "The Golden age of PC Gaming" (which you should read, it's a good argument, and this post will make a lot more sense having read it. In fact, go read it now. It's OK, I'll wait). I hear a lot of people talk about this "era." They refer to their games from 1997 to 2002 as coming from a time of some sort of enlightened perfection, when graphics didn't need to be that shiny, developers were free to innovate, the average PC could actually run the games, new frontiers were being explored and new, innovative ideas flowed from every EB Games in town. And I agree, to some extent. There were a ton of classics and franchises that got thier start during this time, and some that are still being played to this day (Starcraft, The Sims, Quake 3). However, I'm gonna hafta go ahead and say, that's pretty much all just nostalgia banter.
First of all, PC gaming is what, 27 years old? And you're telling me we're already past our golden age? There's really no more innovation to look forward to? Jeez. Books have been around for thousands of years, and they don't even have a golden age. There was (again, arguably) a golden age of hollywood (1930-1948ish, longer for some), but that had to do with the industry figuring out how to make a ton of moola, and churning out some classics at the same time. Plus the whole depression and war thing, which drew a ton of more people to the movies. And people certainly didn't know it was a golden age only 6 years after it was over. It took a tad longer than that. There's also the issue of playability and ease of use. In this supposed, "golden age" the average joe could install and run most all PC games without a hitch, it was easy. This is true to some extent. Mostly because the Quake 3 engine was so awesome, and full 3D RTS games hadn't really come into play yet. But let's not pretend Windows was any less of an unstable mess than it is now. 98 was an improvement over 95, but still had its issues, and the early days of windows XP weren't so hot either. Oh right, and there was ME, good luck getting a game to run on that. Hell, even today I have issues running some of the old classics. Sure, games may have been less buggy back then, as it was more difficult to roll out patches without today's super-fast internets, so developers had to be more careful before releasing thier games. But a game is a program, and no program is bug-free. Every new game has its fair share of crashes. Besides, it really all depends on the developer/publisher. Buy a game from 2k, Valve, Stardock, Activision, or Codemasters and you're likely to have a less buggy experience than a game from EA, Ubisoft, THQ, or GSC game world. System requirements? Yea, they're tough nowadays, and some of them can get a little confusing for the average guy, but this is offset by digital distribution and automatic patching. You know how easy it is to install a game through Steam? Here's the steps: 1) Buy the game. 2) Wait for it to automatically download and install. 3) Play it. Want to keep all your non-steam games automatically patched and updated? Install Xfire and it does all the work for you. Don't know if a game will run on your computer? There's whole communities out there willing to help, along with simple services like this one. Besides, even the Quake 3 engine was pretty tough on systems when it first came out, but a couple years later, most everyone could run it well, and now we're starting to see many consumer PC's being able to run the Unreal 3 engine (and of course, there's Source).
These "golden age" lovers seem to think there's nothing good about PC gaming today. But C'mon. We're seeing some exiting stuff here. Rise of the indie game developer anyone? Games like Everyday Shooter, Braid, Audiosurf, World of Goo, Aquaria and Garry's Mod to name just a few, are all trying new things and innovating in exiting new ways. There's also small developers begginging to pick up speed. There's The Path, Penumbra, Mount & Blade, Painkiller, all amazing games, all made without millions of dollars, from independant developers. The PC gaming industry is evolving into something else, not something worse. Also, MMORPGs anyone? World of Warcraft will run on just about any computer or laptop around, and there's more than 11.5 million active monthly subscribers. There's also Age of Conan, Eve Online, and City of Heroes to name the big ones. MMORPGs completely reshaped the way we think of games, not to mention opening up new realms of developer/player relationships. They're awesome, they're innovative, and they're not from "the golden age." Even the days before "the golden age" were filled with inventive fun. Adventure games were done right back then. LucasArts' SCUMM engine ruled, with awesomely creative games like Monkey Island, Loom, and Day of the Tentacle. Along with Duke Nukem, Myst, Doom, Quake, Descent, and Civilization. All awesome breakthroughs in gameplay. Which brings me to another important point, the actual games. Let's take a look at some awesome PC titles that were released outside of "the golden age." This is a pretty long (though still very incomplete) list. I just kinda picked my loves, and the ones I know had industry and cultural impact, but there are likely other games out there that I'm missing. So first off, games released from 1990-1993: Sim City 2000 Loom The Secret of Monkey Island Monkey Island 2, Lechucks' Revenge Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis Day of the Tentacle Sam and Max Hit the Road Civilization 1 Neverwinter Nights Alone in the Dark Dune 2 Star Control Star Control 2 Doom Myst Duke Nukem Duke Nukem 2
We got a lot of good shit here, SCUMM engine versions 4 to 6 are used for the previously mentioned Monkey Island and other great adventure games. Alone in the Dark started the entire survival horror genre. Myst became one of the best-selling games of all time. And if that's true, certainly it must have been easy enough to install. We have the first MMORPG too, Neverwinter Nights. Dune 2 pretty much solidified the RTS format. And The Civilization series started here, revolutionizing strategy games and becoming one of the biggest franchises out there today. Next, let's look at 1994-1996: Command and Conquer Civilization 2 Diablo Command and Conquer: Red Alert Descent Descent 2 Doom 2 Quake 1 System Shock 1 Warcraft 1 TIE Fighter The Dig X-COM: UFO Defense Jagged Alliance Warcraft 2 Duke Nukem 3D The Elder Scrolls 2: Daggerfall Tomb Raider MechWarrior 2
So we got the Duke, kickin' ass and chewing bubble gum in feaux 3D. X-COM refining the RTS to almost perfection. LucasArts still had it back then with The Dig and TIE Fighter. Warcraft saw its begginings here, as did Descent, Quake, Tomb Raider, Diablo, Command and Conquer, C&C: Red Alert, and System Shock. All awesome, all revolutionary, all before the "golden age." Now we're moving on to after the "golden age" where console-tards started tainting the ingenuity of developers, DRM became rampant and started ruining ease of installation, gameplay and creativity was sacrificed for shinies, which required more and more expensive hardware to run, oh, and all of these great games came out for PC. We'll start from 2003-2005: Half-Life 2 Civilization 4 Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas Far Cry Call of Duty 1 Grand Theft Auto: Vice City Wolfenstien: Enemy Territory Galactic Civilizations Painkiller Counter-Strike: Source Day of Defeat: Source Beyond Good and Evil Psychonauts Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time Darwinia Unreal Tournament 2004 Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell Rise of Nations Warcraft 3: The Frozen Throne World of Warcraft Max Payne 2: The Fall of Max Payne Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic Homeworld 2
Geez what a list. First off, yes, I know some of these came out for consoles as well, but I was never talking about PC exclusive games. And hey, most titles from the "golden age" were on the consoles too, including Quake 3, Deus Ex, even The Sims. Plus you can't expect the industry not to shift over time, and here we began to see a lot of games released on multiple platforms. Anyway, the biggest one here is probably Half-Life 2, which is still regarded as the single greatest PC game ever. Far Cry is debatable, as it represents the rise of shinies replacing gameplay, but it did start the open-world FPS. Psychonauts was awesome, as was Beyond Good and Evil, some super-creative 3D platforming there. World of Warcraft is here, and we see a huge rise in the popularity of online games. Unreal Tournament 2004, Call of Duty, and Wolfenstien ET all had very large online communities that are still fairly strong today. Oh, and Counter Strike: Source is one of the most popular online action games of all time, played by both average joe and hardcore gamer alike. And finnally, 2006-Present: The Orange Box Bioshock Portal Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare Team Fortress 2 Fallout 3 Grand Theft Auto 4 Left 4 Dead World in Conflict Galactic Civilizations 2 Race Driver: GRID Civilization 4: Beyond the Sword Half-Life 2: Episode 1 Half-life 2: Episode 2 The Elder Scrolls 4: Oblivion Flatout 2 Battlefield 2142 Sam and Max Season 1 Sins of a Solar Empire
Ok, yea, I named The Orange Box, as well as all of the games that are in The Orange Box, but Portal is amazing and deserves it's own love. As does TF2, and pretty much every game in The Orange Box. Also, the system requirements for The Orange Box? A Pentium 4 Processor, 1GB of RAM, and a DirectX 9 level graphics card. And those are the reccomended specs. How hard is it to install? Oh right, you get it through Steam. And game quality? Oh right, it's the freaking Orange Box. So, games today are crap are they? There's a ton of other games here that I will be playing years from now. Left 4 Dead is classic already, Co-Op is here to stay. Grand Theft Auto 4 was a cinematic achievement (despite it's admittedly shitty PC release). Call of Duty 4's multiplayer will stand out as unique, balanced, original, and fun as hell. World in Conflict gives us a new angle on the RTS genre. There's so many great, inspired games out today. Also, I didn't even mention all of the great amazing indie titles that have come out in the past couple of years. But to name a few: Light of Altair, And Yet It Moves, Crayon Physics Delux, The Path, Defcon, The Maw, Toribash, as well as the ones mentioned earlier. All of these games have great graphics, great gameplay, will run stable on pretty much anything, and they're fun as hell (admittedly I'm not through all of them yet, but I have yet to be dissapointed and you wont find a negative review out there). Also, they're exclusive to the PC, and most are available on Steam. So, I guess there you have it. Culture changes, industries change, technology changes, but there's always creative people out there making great video games. There are even those who think that now is the greatest time to be a gamer. And that, "If you can't find something to play -- something amazing -- you're just not looking." As video games in general rise in popularity, I see only a brighter, bigger future for PC games, where the hardcore gamer and average joe live in harmony, and new, exiting ideas are seen everywhere. The gaming generation is growing up, computers are more powerful and more portable than ever, and video games are more and more often seen as a valid artistic medium. All of this can only lead to good things. Boy, if I didn't know better, I'd say we're entering a golden age right now.

5 comments :: The "Golden Age" of PC Gaming? O RLY?

  1. While I would not at all call myself a PC gamer, I agree with your argument about "golden ages" in general. Basically, that they don't exist. For example, you cited 1930-1948 as the golden age of cinema, but I, along with countless other people, would say that it was more like 1965-1980. In that period, we had The Graduate, A Clockwork Orange, The Godfather, Chinatown, Annie Hall... basically too many to name. I'm not saying that you're wrong about naming the golden age of Hollywood. I'm saying you're right about the fact that good art is created all the time, and that while different periods have different styles, each one has its merits.

    The same goes for pop music too. Countless people will say that its peak was the 70s (Led Zeppelin, David Bowie, The Ramones, Bob Marley...), but usually these people are ignoring underground bands, as well as all of the innovation that came out of every other decade. So basically I think your argument is totally true and also goes way beyond games.

  2. Good points, and I agree for the most part. I do maintain that '98-'02 was the Golden Age of PC development, though, mainly due to a case of the shinies. A game released in 1999 only had to devote a fraction of the budget that modern games do to graphics in order to look "competitive." It's a simple fact that modeling, rigging, and animating for a game like Half-Life is not nearly as time or resource intensive as, say, Crysis. Yet, you didn't have to be John Carmack in order to actually produce content - there were plenty of WYSWIG editors, modelers, etc. Thus, you saw large mainstream publishers trying new things, as the amount of money invested was not terrible. System Shock 2, for example, was published by Electronic "Hey, let's release another Madden game" Arts. Thanks partly to higher visual standards, there's a lot more money invested (and thus a lot more risk) in producing a AAA title.

  3. @Bobbicus

    And I'm not saying that this isn't true. I'm saying that that doesn't make it a golden age.

    Just because it was a good time to be a developer doesn't mean it was the best time to be a developer. There are plenty things wrong about games from '97-'02 just as there are plenty things wrong about gaming today. They're not the same things, but every period has its ups and downs.

    I basically mean what Jake said, that every period has its own unique style, creativity, innovation, and industry. I might be an 80's fan and you might be a 70's fan, but are the 70's better than the 80's? Of course not, they're both just decades.

    Oh, btw, we need to play more SS2. great game.

  4. Of course it's all based on nostalgia... I really don't see anything wrong with nostalgia until you get little kids trying to identify with old consoles, NES and the like when they weren't even old enough to have played the games when they first came out. I mean, I didn't really start gaming until N64 came out, so I've never really felt nostalgic for anything before that era... I guess the canonization of older video games by critics hasn't done much to challenge these ideals of "golden age" nostalgia.

  5. Evan -

    I think there's a difference between liking something out of nostalgia and liking something because it's cool in a retro way. I think that the recent popularity of 8-bit games would fall into the latter category. Most of the people who love 8-bit games now but didn't play them when they first came out (at least most of the people like this I know) won't say that 8-bit games are better than games of later generations. Most of these people will say that they like them for their unique aesthetics, sometimes even in an ironic way.

    Once again, let's turn to music as a parallel example. There's a huge difference between liking something for the sake of nostalgia and for the sake of retro cool. An aging baby boomer or an angsty 14-year old saying that music was the best in the 60s is doing this out of a (real or fake) nostalgia. Someone who loves cheesy 80s synth pop, on the other hand, is probably doing so because of irony or because it's cool in a retro way. I'd say 8-bit gaming totally falls in the latter category. I do think that with the second generation there might be some nostalgia involved, but that that's not the case with the third generation, that it's still ironically/retro cool. Maybe that's because the third generation was such a huge leap forward from the second generation, but there weren't as many huge leaps forward afterwards in console gaming, at least not as suddenly. I dunno, that's just the way I see it, maybe I'm wrong.