Will another video game crash happen again?

As said by many people before a crash would do a lot of good.

MikeRS said:

People without jobs will buy things that make them happy. Video games make people happy (along with other things like sweets).

It doesn't make logical sense but that's how most people go about.

Before that seemed very stupid to me also. But, now I'm more or less seeing it from the other side. Like many people I was laid off due to the recession and Dells major profit loss. On top of that I have been putting money into a 401k through out the years. I have since lost 80% of it.

Now I am currently working at a gas station part time and Wal-Mart simply due to the fact that there is nothing else out there at the moment. Or there are 100+ people ahead of me when it comes to applications.

My stress level has shot through the roof. I can't even put it into words what the past 3 months have done to my stress level. When your stress level gets to high every one knows it can have a negative effect on your heath. Being stressed out 24/7 has all ready started to take its toll on me.

With that being said. The best thing any one could do is find ways to make them self's happy and make them forget about there troubles for a bit. Since this whole thing has started I have gotten 3 new games, more free weights and finished the tattoo's on my right arm.

Yes it did cost me a bit to do all that. But, I am starting to destress a lot and right now that has to come first.

Maes said:

Have you ever tried "cracking" a game protected with Shitforce? The one's I've see there just weren't "clean" cracks for them that would remove it once and for all, but you had to install it nonetheless and then use a combo of special image-mounting software and run-time "cracks". Or worse, a game protected by a client/server setup, which also requires setting up nothing less than a web server emulator to be able to (somewhat, sometimes) play it

Plenty, all you need to do is replace an .exe and sometimes, a few dlls. Hardly an ordeal.

Sure 0-day cracks are convoluted and often break a feature mid-game, but that's irrelevant considering we're talking about "old games".

But what else can you expect from a forum of Doom fans? Probably half of you have piece of shit computers that can't enjoy a post 2000 game, and the other half dons rose-tinted glasses to conceal their pink eye.

How about the strongest supporters of the 'old games were better' cause post their favourite games so I can mock their picks?

As other people have said, too many idiots around buying games based solely on thier graphics, regardless of wether they are any fun or not. That Vin Diesel game that's coming out looks like it's fun as hell, but a trailer i saw on youtube was full of people going "ohmg it lukz like it shud be on PS1 lololol shit".

On the other hand dumbed-down films like "The Hottie & the Nottie" and "Jumper" have flopped horribly in recent memory, so there's more likely to be a film crash than a gaming crash. Well i say film crash, i mean Hollywood crash. Most other studios aren't putting out pointless cack for the most part.

Zaldron said:
Probably half of you have piece of shit computers that can't enjoy a post 2000 game

I think it's stupid to keep wasting money and time on games (this includes hardware and additional software) when you already found a game you really enjoy. That said, I generally don't chime in with the "older is better" crowd because whether other games are good or not is more or less irrelevant.

footman said:
The Nostalgia Filter is a cruel mistress indeed.

That applies both ways, as newer users and fans are also conditioned by the aesthetic or technological standards of their moment. And Sam Viviano's quote there kind of downplays the value of sticking to this older style by explaining it away, but then again, he wants you to buy the newer issues, so he's conditioned in what he says too.

Modern games tend to be cookie cutter clones with only sleight differences because they all have the same basic underlying 3d engine. New zeldas etc are just '3D World: Zelda Version' (they just hijack the 'zelda' name/meme to trick people into buying with nostalgia.. and top down simple sprites allows the player more imagination than making link more 'real' with idiotic voice sounds, not to mention all old nes etc music beats the hell out of modern game music (well ocarina music was nice, but compare modern guitar crap sonic music vs genesis sonic music).. original zelda's 8 digital top down directions lends to better gameplay than cumbersomely analogue 3d directions (I think doom's 2.5d is a pro, not a con).
Big budget games require large teams to create, and the input from so many people averages out. Input from a single eccentric individual with radical concepts won't shine through as strong in a large group. And of course its mainstream so they aren't risky and mostly only sell what has previously sold successfully.
You won't really find hard gameplay in modern games because they want to maximize revenue by appealing to the masses. The end part of god of war I guess (I beat that) but it was mostly boring/tedious- nowhere near the gameplay of something like hell revealed. And with practically every modern game, you have a subgame called Menu and Cutscene Battle, where you have to fiddle with popup options and watching movies instead of playing a game.. and load times for all that unnecessary crap that only makes games worse. When you die in doom, press spacebar once and you're playing again.

'Hollywood crash'
Hopefully Anonymous, final boss of the internet, will defeat scientology and all their undeserved millionaire hollywood hosts.

leileilol said:
We're still playing Doom because it's still a game, and not a game with a storybook shoved in your face. That is the key to its replayability, which many recent games don't offer[/B]

That's part of it, but I think the real replayability is in the ability to make maps/mods quickly and easily. Lets face it, if Doom was still just the commercial IWADS, nobody would still be playing it accept for some occasional nostalgia.

One of the problems with true-3D games is the amount of content needed. As the graphics become more detailed it takes longer and longer to create the art assets and levels for the game. Look at the credits for old (commercial) games, usually it's only a few people(excluding marketing,etc..), hell on the really old games it's sometimes just one guy. Today you need an entire art studio.

Edit: Just to be clear, I'm not really against flashy graphics. I was just pointing out that they hurt replayability by limitng user made content.

Scet said:
That's part of it, but I think the real replayability is in the ability to make maps/mods quickly and easily. Lets face it, if Doom was still just the commercial IWADS, nobody would still be playing it accept for some occasional nostalgia.

Mods certainly help, but if you ask me, the game itself helps too. Its (simple but fun) mechanics, and even the original levels. While I do play mods a good deal I still find myself going back to the stock levels as well. If it weren't for stuff like COMPET-N and Map01 DM maybe I would have quit paying attention to the DOOM games. To me "replayability" is to play levels repeatedly; added levels is "extensibility".

footman said:

The Nostalgia Filter is a cruel mistress indeed.

I love the old games I grew up playing, but I don't let Nostalgia get in the way of me enjoying new games as well.

Actually, that TV trope doesn't apply to interactive media very well. An older game is not nostalgic if you still really enjoy it. It's only nostalgic if you occasionally go back to it mainly to "live the good old times".

I kind of realize...is there a certain point to which gaming as an industry is destined to evolve itself until it reaches a point where the only thing that can change is graphical capability? How much will greater processing power and larger budgets be able to result in truly revolutionary new styles of gameplay, or will it only continue to be a matter of more characters and more detail? Is it even possible for there to be another game like Doom (or arguably Wolfenstein) which virtually create an entire new genre, or were all the really brilliant new ideas exhausted back in the 80s and 90s when processing power gradually ceased to put limits on the basic forms games could take?

I don't know if I'm making sense or just ranting, but I'm not sure I know what new and exciting future could even follow a video game crash. I'm not saying it isn't possible that another gaming renaissance could happen but I suppose, like most anybody, I don't know what the games would be like.

'were all the really brilliant new ideas exhausted back in the 80s and 90s'

I can imagine starting from the NES/genesis/snes era and evolving in a completely different direction instead of 3d. I'd guess the extra computational power of moore's law since then could be applied to a simple megaman 3 type game in a completely different way, like much deeper gameplay somehow. Each enemy character could have like 10 different randomly selected behaviors/animations/death scenes/sounds etc. Maybe some sort of more sophisticated/fun interaction between the player and enemies instead of 'shoot bullet sprite/ if bullet sprite hits enemy, enemy gets damaged or dies'. Maybe more controls than simply jump, shoot, slide. Like a simple extra 'b = run faster' button in mario 3 makes it more fun and controllable (doom gives the user tons of control, run/strafe/turn, etc, yet doesn't overdo it with extra complexities like jumping/cycling through inventory (heretic). For me, in doom I have almost every single finger on a key in doom, so it truly is a skill in that its fun for the brain to control all this like playing a piano or something. Megaman is just 'hold right and occasionally jump or shoot' essentially, much less brain taxing (but the music is so damn good I can just not move the player at all and listen to it).
An example of a fun enemy in a simpler game imo is those shield/sword guys from zelda II NES. They give your brain more to deal with because you have to simultaneously avoid the sword while also try to hit where the shield isn't. (but that enemy has a cheat where you can jump and hit it in the head pretty much every time). So basically make each megaman enemy more interesting to play against like that or something maybe.
But there are already old games with more 'interesting' deeper gameplay; streetfighter for genesis with a 6 button controller has damn good replay value, and there's way more strategy and fun to it than 'holding right and occasionally tapping jump or shoot'. I played the shit out of that game, maybe as much as doom (both versions, the super and champion edition, or whatever). And the 'vanilla' sfII game is still fun even with no mods like doom's user created wads. The AI is amazingly fun imo. If there was an easy way to make your own characters and stuff nowadays it'd be even better. I thought the gameplay of mortal kombat and most others sucked in comparison. I beat the entire game with ken and guile on the hardest difficulty without dying once multiple times. But the enemy ai of such a game is another thing computer resources could go to instead of 3d realism. Like imagine if the computer controlled e honda had maybe 10 different playing styles, and it randomly selected between them, thus making it less predictable. Or computer resources could put in tons of extra characters, make them more smoothly animated, etc.

doom gives the user tons of control, run/strafe/turn, etc, yet doesn't overdo it with extra complexities like jumping/cycling through inventory (heretic).

Reminds me of what Wolf 3D was meant to be originally...they had dragging bodies, swapping uniforms and silent attacks already in but decided to drop them to make it mouse/joystick only if you wanted to.

The AI is amazingly fun imo. If there was an easy way to make your own characters and stuff nowadays it'd be even better. I thought the gameplay of mortal kombat and most others sucked in comparison. I beat the entire game with ken and guile on the hardest difficulty without dying once multiple times. But the enemy ai of such a game is another thing computer resources could go to instead of 3d realism. Like imagine if the computer controlled e honda had maybe 10 different playing styles, and it randomly selected between them, thus making it less predictable. Or computer resources could put in tons of extra characters, make them more smoothly animated, etc.

What AI...the characters all had predictable patterns that made it possible (with skill and a bit of luck ofc) to "master" a character (which I managed to do with 8 out of the 12, including a 1-shot with ryu. Straight after ken ofc). But it was cool to have the reward screen when you did it, kinda like the achievement system in some modern games.

Not sure if I have enough understanding of ai in general, but I basically mean that whatever program controlled the opponent behavior (referring to genesis versions) did a really good job at keeping fun replay value, imo at least. Yeah, you can memorize a few more predictable enemy movements, not nearly as many lame cheap moves as mortal kombat though (though often playing with a different character won't allow an exploit you used with a different one- like you can do a small dragon punch in front of guile to trick him into doing a blade kick that misses you thus leaving him vulnerable in super streetfighter.), but the enemy always seemed to have a degree of unpredictability/challenge to me, maybe simply due to randomness. Some enemy characters are more challenging, like zangief/ryu/deejay. And enemy interaction/gameplay in street fighter is much more interesting and in depth than something like sonic the hedgehog where you merely press A once to vanquish a foe.
I'm not sure what '1 shot' refers to (genesis version?).
I enjoy doom way more than I enjoyed wolfenstein 3d (probably more complexity like dragging bodies would have made me like it even less). Each replay is pretty much identical, whereas in doom there's lots of enemies and chaos that make each replay unique (depending on level design). The lower computation for 2.5d frees up resources to allow for tons of enemies, I'd assume, while 3d games use it all up on 3d crap and have you facing only a few scripted enemies at a time.

You can view videogames as tradeoffs between mediatic content/gameplay.

Sure, in the past where the very term "hardware capabilities" was a joke and digital consumer-grade computers were not even able to display graphics, you could only have text adventures or simple keyboard games. That was the "100% gameplay, no graphics/media content" extreme.

When (better) graphics came, they were still unimpressive enough not to base a game just upon them, although an early symptom of what was to be came in 1983, with Dragon Lair, where the other extreme was hit: all graphics and no gameplay to speak of. And that was in 1983, mind ye.

They tried to bring this sort of "gameplay" back several times during the 80s, 90s, and probably they will give it another shot in the late 00s with that OnLive thing. In any case, these are extremes, and most games today can -in theory- have both good media content AND gameplay....but which ones really do?

Also the threshold of what constitutes good or bad graphics rises with time. You can't market Atari 2600 graphics today (on a mainstream title, at least), and even what would be cutting-edge in 2004 is not worth a dog's shit today, at least in the eye of reviewers. E.g. I enjoyed World of Goo, but because it's not super-duper 3D photorealistic etc. someone might not even play it. Meh this has been discussed so many times it's not even worth the effort...

Whatever advertising strategy world of goo used seems to have been very successful because everybody knows about it, while it just seems like a rather average flash-ish game to me. I thought it was boring/not really puzzly or challenging, but kinda like time consuming work (just my opinion).
The media content in modern games tends to all be the same mostly; attempts at accurately portraying the real world with light/physics etc and polygon characters. Seems like the same basic 3d engine code is used in each game. Old games allowed more abstract uniqueness/ maybe an isometric game here, top down there, side scroller etc. Or even really abstract like cards or chess don't need a 3d environment at all. There's genres in modern games too but they almost all have the underlying '3d world' so feel similar. I mean, its a game so let your imagination run wild instead of copying the real world (only occasional unique deviations from cookie cutter physics like in jack and daxter (if I remember) there was one level where you're on a sphere with gravity pointing in from all sides and you can walk all the way around it (i guess mario galaxy too)- just something unique compared to everything else.

gggmork said:

I'm not sure what '1 shot' refers to (genesis version?).

1-shot = killing/winning/succeeding etc. on the first go.

Zaldron said:

(About shitforced games)
Plenty, all you need to do is replace an .exe and sometimes, a few dlls. Hardly an ordeal.

Depends. If it's a "gamerip" maybe, but if you start from the installation CDs/DVDs, I've seen no way of preventing shitforce from fucking your box up during the installation phase, you'll either have to install it and somehow trick it later, or remove it a posteriori with some tool. Anyway, this is borderline warez pimping...

Zaldron said:

But what else can you expect from a forum of Doom fans? Probably half of you have piece of shit computers that can't enjoy a post 2000 game, and the other half dons rose-tinted glasses to conceal their pink eye.

Dude, shitforce didn't even exist in the year 2000. And I bet most people here have at least a 2004-class machine.

Notice how no one is posting these fabled magic Games of the Ancients which completely destroy any attempt by puny mortals these days.

Zaldron said:

But what else can you expect from a forum of Doom fans? Probably half of you have piece of shit computers that can't enjoy a post 2000 game, and the other half dons rose-tinted glasses to conceal their pink eye.

Hey that's a bit personal isn't it?

Zaldron said:

Notice how no one is posting these fabled magic Games of the Ancients which completely destroy any attempt by puny mortals these days.

Ultima II. Go nuts.

If it sounds personal you must understand this nonsense has been brought up year after year for over two decades now, and the insipid comments supporters of the idea have, such as 'they should concentrate on gameplay rather than graphics' and 'not as fun as x game of my youth' can be and have been contested with sound logic every single time.

Wait wait, you're pitching the less liked Ultima game?

Zaldron said:

Wait wait, you're pitching the less liked Ultima game?

Haha I knew you'd be too quick for that one.

I think what it comes down it is the more a person understands how games work and what to expect the more they're simply going to be disappointed. Ignorance sure is bliss, and it applies to everything. Sure, everything is better when you're a kid, you don't know anything and haven't tasted the bitter stink of suck.

A great example is my 4 year old niece, who's crazy about Sonic Adventure on Dreamcast. Ask any Sonic fan, they'll start off with a myriad or problems this game has for any number of reason, from being rushed, horrible camera, shotty voice acting, whatever, the list is endless. Does she give a shit about that? No of course not, and this game to her is the best thing she's ever seen, and will probably stick in her memory as one of her favorite games. It's all just perspective.

Use3D said:
I think what it comes down it is the more a person understands how games work and what to expect the more they're simply going to be disappointed. Ignorance sure is bliss, and it applies to everything. Sure, everything is better when you're a kid, you don't know anything and haven't tasted the bitter stink of suck.

That sounds interesting, but may need a bit more depth, as I can think of many games I liked when I was younger that bring good memories but have a purely nostalgic value to me nowadays.

Zaldron said:
If it sounds personal you must understand this nonsense has been brought up year after year for over two decades now, and the insipid comments supporters of the idea have, such as 'they should concentrate on gameplay rather than graphics' and 'not as fun as x game of my youth' can be and have been contested with sound logic every single time.

Oh, yeah, shooting down opinions and tastes with "sound logic". That really works. You didn't even do that yourself in this thread because you know it's bullshit :p

Rather than being concerned about people sticking to older games as if it were a problem, I'd just observe why we do it. Sure is better than getting miffed or helping disagreements get even more irrational. Some points that may account for why older games attract certain people or newer ones irk them:

• Companies spam their new games at us; many of which seem more expensive than impressive
  
• Good older games tend to be simple, newer ones often add stuff on top of their basics, becoming more baroque
  
• Many of these valued old games are part of the genesis of certain genres and not just "another game"
  
• Old games tend to be cheaper, are sometimes forgotten commercially, and the systems for them can be obtained at bargain prices
  
• To be worth anything an old game better be fun to do something with, have "fun gameplay", as it won't impress us with any technical novelties
  
• After a thousand developments we grow jaded in respect to tech advancements; new games require an extra plus beyond any such "ooh" factor
  
• If you see an newer game that does more or less what an existing game does, why pay attention (money and time) to it?

myk said:

If you see an newer game that does more or less what an existing game does, why pay attention (money and time) to it?

That's simple to answer: because you want to play more of the same. Sometimes people will buy a game even if it offers nothing new simply to have something else to play in the genre. This assumes that the game is at least good, if not spectacular.

Doom is a very good example of this. Despite the fact that the game has changed very little, we still play it year after year, because there is always something new to play. It doesn't have to be innovative if it's fun.

Your answer contains something against itself; why bother with the new game (this may imply spending money, upgrading the computer, getting familiar with differences in the new game and other things) when you can just replay DOOM or download another PWAD?

You can certainly answer every point listed above in some way. If it weren't possible, you'd hardly have people playing new games. You can answer them, but can you refute them as valid factors behind the tastes and preferences of people? My point was to throw some light on why people may be sticking to older games, as opposed to depicting them as brainless zealots.

Another big point about old games, and I know I've read this here before, is the fact that hardware limitations of the time forced a lot of innovations. Like a few others I grew up on a Commodore 64, in an era when video games just started having real depth, where even a basic feature like a soundtrack was a big deal. Before then there was barely any real sound in a game.

Now keep in mind, many C64 games, although shovelware, were programmed/drawn/scored by 1 person, sometimes a small team. You're getting a much purer vision of the designers game when he has his hands in every facet of development.

As the hardware has grown exponentially, you have these huge development teams, just trying to 'keep up with the joneses', not so much concerned with doing anything interesting or innovative, they're following the formulas already laid out by some other successful franchises, like Snarboo pointed out. The groundwork has been laid, and things haven gotten stale. Until there's some huge leap in the way games are made or played, I think things will just continue to stagnate as the hardware just grows an grows, never really seeing it's full potential, as everyone just follows the same old story.

What has really innovated in games since the release of the Playstation or Saturn when things started moving all to 3d? Nothing really, just the graphics get better.

I dunno, maybe I'm just getting old. I'm more interested in how the old stuff works, like how Rob Hubbard was able to hack 4 sounds out of the SID chip, or how the transparencies were finally figured out in a Saturn game. I keep thinking I want to buy a 360, but I look a the games, and I honestly don't see anything that I'd want to spend 60 bucks on for maybe 12 hours of enjoyment, when odds are I've played the game already in some other form on a system 5 years old or more.

myk said:

My point was to throw some light on why people may be sticking to older games, as opposed to depicting them as brainless zealots.

I understand that, I just wanted to comment on your point. I wasn't trying to refute anything you said.

Zaldron said:

Notice how no one is posting these fabled magic Games of the Ancients which completely destroy any attempt by puny mortals these days.

Spacewar! for lovers of twitch games and Colossal Cave Adventure for everyone else. :P

myk said:
Oh, yeah, shooting down opinions and tastes with "sound logic". That really works. You didn't even do that yourself in this thread because you know it's bullshit :p

I think it's fairly obvious why I didn't do it, i'm tired of repeating myself basically. But hey here we go:

# Programmers and artists' skills have no actual impact on designers. There is no 'make it fun first, then make it look good', no 'all they care for are graphics' and certainly no 'they should have spent more time making it fun'. If some developers do their job better than the designer, well, kudos to them and fuck the shitty designer. Go find a good game somewhere else.

# Nostalgia warps everything. Absolutely everything. You're all a loose congregation of Jaded Gamers Anonymous simply because you're not listing your end it all games. Your wildly differing ages and backgrounds will reveal contradictory opinions that only arise from having been marked or defined by certain games of your past.

• Companies spam their new games at us; many of which seem more expensive than impressive
  
• Good older games tend to be simple, newer ones often add stuff on top of their basics, becoming more baroque
  
• Many of these valued old games are part of the genesis of certain genres and not just "another game"
  
• Old games tend to be cheaper, are sometimes forgotten commercially, and the systems for them can be obtained at bargain prices
  
• To be worth anything an old game better be fun to do something with, have "fun gameplay", as it won't impress us with any technical novelties
  
• After a thousand developments we grow jaded in respect to tech advancements; new games require an extra plus beyond any such "ooh" factor
  
• If you see an newer game that does more or less what an existing game does, why pay attention (money and time) to it?

# spam? How so? Don't you live in Bs. As? What possible visual contamination the industry may have on you? If you're reading game news there's going to be the occasional plug trailer and all interviews read like they're doing the best game ever, but this is a publicity tactic older than both of us combined and squared. It's not like old games didn't do this anyway, AND they were even more of a pants on fire liar than today. Remember those back of boxes or game magazine features list claiming 'Life like NPCs', an achievement that hasn't even happened in this age, let alone in the clunky, simple state machines of old games. What about 'photorealistic depiction', 'realistic' anything, 'inmersive', 'thousands/millions of possibilities', 'randomly generated for maximum replayability', and many many other lies.

# Why is simplicity a measure of fun whenever x and x+y are pitted against. Why is x always somehow better off? Have you played Pong lately? Or like the poster below said, Spacewar!? They're so mind numbingly stupid these days they can't hold your interest for more than, at best, a full hour reminiscing with a sibling or friend. And then it's out for a decade before you get the same urge to play the games of your youth. This is a no-sense argument, and you know it, because any designer out there, had they had the time and resources, would have added the details you seem to despise, thereby rendering all your 'old games' unfun? Not bloody likely. How come they all hit the 'right amount of details' to satisfy myk? Do you see how first-exposure plays a part here?

# Why being a genre founder is better than being a game? You all seem to be playing OpenGL-enhanced Doom, not DosBox'd Maze War. The very fact the DOOM community is so strong clearly shows there's a spot in our hearts for games that added many things to the genre, most of them technical and graphical.

# Cheaper is a valid point, forgotten has no bearing. However, none of these games were actually cheap back then, just as modern games will be given a decent amount of time has come to pass. This is not a plus of old games intrinsically, you're just unfairly pitting a game that has to make a profit to support a company against a piece of consumerism that has seen better days.

# ..which skews our view of old games simply because you play the very best few of a bunch spanning more than two decades of games to choose from. In fact, considering how any tard could make a game in the early days, and how many disjointed, upstarts tried their hand at it during those days, I think it's pretty safe to say the average quality of AAA titles has jumped up somewhat in the last, say, console generation. If you don't agree with me kindly remember those shareware cds our beloved game magazines of our youth brought with under the plastic film and recall how terrible some of them were.

# Well you may grow jaded, I retain that childhood glee of mine I got from watching falling leaves from Hexen's dead trees when I see carriers stuck in gigantic frozen waves of pristine, Rayleigh-blue ice. And to top it off, I'm actually having fun shooting people in the face like a motherfucking Predator.

# Sure, why play a game that seems derivative? You can't say, however, that more or less the same is just like playing the original one and there is no incentive at all. After all, I'm pretty sure you enjoy these Doom mods we get every week that bear almost no resemblance to the formula and/or setting of the IWAD.

And if you all keep on disagreeing with me, remember:

Some kid half your age HATES your old shitty ass games and will defend to dead modern 'derivative' games to young rebellious punks in the Future like the pinnacle of Human achievement.

So you were all born exactly in the Golden Age of gaming, huh? What a coincidence, specially considering your varying ages.

I think the thing about today's games is they are made by 300 people for companies who want to make money and take years to make. With doom you had less than 10 people working on it, probably similar amounts of people even on big titles like Sonic. I think with more and more people involved the initial vision gets warped in over the years the game is being made in with hundreds of people projecting their own slightly different vision of what they're doing. Adding on deadlines and pressure as they try to get a massive game done quick, or the fact they're just churning a game out (licensed titles and the like) doesn't help much.

I'd say overall the ratio of crap to good has changed over the years, there was a lot of crap in the past, but with the increase of popularity in gaming there's a lot more people looking to make money with shit. Games like doom were made by people who really loved games and wanted to make them. Making money was a part of it but they started as hobbyists and gamers. You get games on the spectrum/c64/amiga, for example, made by a total of 2 people, a programmer and an artist. They're a bit shitty by today's standards but there was probably a lot more love put into them.

Nostalgia is a factor, but most people can tell quality when they see it, even as a kid.