What caused the mid-90s RPG drought?

[rusty_shackleford]

Never really seen this addressed anywhere

[Stack of Turtles]

global warming

[Tweed]

What do you mean by mid-90s? What do you mean by draught? There was a lot of also-rans and black sheep during 95-96. Stone Prophet, Thunderscape, Albion, Stonekeep, Anvil of Dawn, Daggerfall.

Oh and there were some online gems! Meridian 59, Magestorm, and Furcadia!

Of side note: Stonekeep and Anvil of Dawn were the end of the original, mainstream blobbers.

[GhostCow]

I remember Michael Wolf talking about this many times. He wrote the Alternate Lives column for PC Gamer. The industry just thought people weren't interested at the time. Honestly I wasn't really back then either. I didn't really get into RPGs until the early 2000s.

[rusty_shackleford]

Albion

But this is actually really good

[Tweed]

I remember Michael Wolf talking about this many times. He wrote the Alternate Lives column for PC Gamer. The industry just thought people weren't interested at the time. Honestly I wasn't really back then either. I didn't really get into RPGs until the early 2000s.

For those of us who were interested, there was little on the shelves. I don't think I even remember seeing Albion. Daggerfall was a day one purchase, but we'd been anticipating it for a long time, and it delivered, warts and all. We'd also picked up Stonekeep and Anvil of Dawn and enjoyed both titles (even though I bailed on Stonekeep earlier this month on the replay). Back when all you had to go on were the magazines, the box covers, and the occasional demo, you picked your games very carefully. We were also pretty lucky to have not just a Software Etc., but also a Babbage's in our mall, which had a TV display out front that showcased footage from upcoming games, which included titles like Stonekeep, so we had to chance to see it in action.

Otherwise, yeah, the middle years were a slump. The first real kick in the butt came with Fallout, I think. Also helped if you were into MMOs. UO began sucking up our free time in the beta and then once it hit the shelves officially.

[Vaako]

Not really sure. Maybe related to Sega and why they failed. Snes was pretty popular with the youth but games/hardware was way too expensive for most in the 90s. Only people I ever saw buying games in video game shops were very few adults. And they also did lot of piracy by copying games on floppies back then that tech like the amiga probably didnt sell too many games either. I got one gifted when I was like 10ish...but the games werent great and that thing was huge. Guess when the technology is still doing leaps every few years most normies dont really wanna beta test all the new hardware. And without internet back then for most it had to work without patches.

[Mordred]

Albion

But this is actually really good

back when germany wasn't ******. i got in GOG sale a while ago maybe i play it again

[Norfleet]

What drought? They were there, you just didn't like the offerings. Since there are only a finite number of developers and thus a finite number of products they can **** out, if what they **** out happens to actually be **** and you don't play it, the genre experiences what amounts to a slowdown, which tends to promote itself because people tend to copycat what was successful. So if there was little success, then there would be little copycatting. Just the usual business cycle.

[rusty_shackleford]

What drought? They were there, you just didn't like the offerings. Since there are only a finite number of developers and thus a finite number of products they can **** out, if what they **** out happens to actually be **** and you don't play it, the genre experiences what amounts to a slowdown, which tends to promote itself because people tend to copycat what was successful. So if there was little success, then there would be little copycatting. Just the usual business cycle.

Limiting it to just RPGs released by RPG developers of note:

Sir-Tech
Wizardry VII: 1992
…
Wizardry 8: 2001

New World Computing
Might and Magic V: 1993
…
Might and Magic VI: 1998

Blue Sky Productions(later Looking Glass)
Ultima Underworld: 1992
Ultima Underworld 2: 1993
System Shock: 1994 (Only some consider this an RPG)
…
System Shock 2: 1999 (Partial credit)

Origin, main studio
Pagan: Ultima VIII: 1994
…
Ultima IX: Ascension: 1999


And so on

[Norfleet]

Yeah, so, not seeing a "drought". Seems like a pretty extensive list for the era following a relatively normal development cycle to me.

[Oyster Sauce]

How do the 90s compare to the 80s?

[asf]

no rpgs in the 50s

[Xenich]

Never really seen this addressed anywhere

I want to say the transition from 2D to 3D probably played a big part and all the limitations that came with that (memory/storage space requirements, specialized graphics cards, etc...). It was likely a big jump in costs for development to create a traditional in-depth world that most RPGs require on top of it having to now consider 3D space.

A lot of the 3D games coming out at the time were adventure/action games and a lot of them felt more like "tech demos" focusing on the 3D experience. It could have been what I mentioned above as well as the lack of experience to take on such a massive project at the time.

Also, most of the big 3D RPG games came out around 2000+, with many being "in development", so maybe it was a combination of all of that while they were in the middle of development through the mid 90's to finally release by then. It seems like it makes sense due to that transition period.

[Xenich]

How do the 90s compare to the 80s?

Hmm... I remember the bulk of the good 2D RPGs coming out were during the early 90's. The 80's had a lot of good ones (gold box), but I would say the 80's were the era of them exploring how to make RPGs graphically outside of the traditional gold box style design. I don't remember playing a bunch of graphical RPGs in the 80's outside of those types, mostly text/graphical adventures. When the 90's began, I started to see a lot of more 2D graphical RPGs, but once 3D hit, there was a lull, likely due to them changing development focus and gearing up for 3D style worlds.

[Kolgrim]

In terms of consoles and specifically the SNES I'd say the mid 90's were a golden age of sorts considering Chrono Trigger, Terranigma, Super Mario RPG, EarthBound, Final Fantasy VI, and Shadowrun all came out during that period.

[Irenaeus]

Never really seen this addressed anywhere

I want to say the transition from 2D to 3D probably played a big part and all the limitations that came with that (memory/storage space requirements, specialized graphics cards, etc...). It was likely a big jump in costs for development to create a traditional in-depth world that most RPGs require on top of it having to now consider 3D space.

A lot of the 3D games coming out at the time were adventure/action games and a lot of them felt more like "tech demos" focusing on the 3D experience. It could have been what I mentioned above as well as the lack of experience to take on such a massive project at the time.

Also, most of the big 3D RPG games came out around 2000+, with many being "in development", so maybe it was a combination of all of that while they were in the middle of development through the mid 90's to finally release by then. It seems like it makes sense due to that transition period.

I think this is the right idea, mainly that developers had to consider bigger teams for bigger games, expanding technical, art and music teams. A major step up that must have made RPG development way more complex to be managed to deliver a game that would not disappoint.
There was a change in player expectations from 2D sprites to 3D graphics with a lot of spectacle allowed by sound cards, increased memory from both bigger HD and greater RAM (16/32 DRA/SDRAM). These more complex games even had to run in Windows 95 or later 98.
It must have been complicated to manage and deliver a good game even for established studios, which is why the mid 90s were a weird era if your game wasn't a simple 3D platformer/shooter.

[Xenich]

Never really seen this addressed anywhere

I want to say the transition from 2D to 3D probably played a big part and all the limitations that came with that (memory/storage space requirements, specialized graphics cards, etc...). It was likely a big jump in costs for development to create a traditional in-depth world that most RPGs require on top of it having to now consider 3D space.

A lot of the 3D games coming out at the time were adventure/action games and a lot of them felt more like "tech demos" focusing on the 3D experience. It could have been what I mentioned above as well as the lack of experience to take on such a massive project at the time.

Also, most of the big 3D RPG games came out around 2000+, with many being "in development", so maybe it was a combination of all of that while they were in the middle of development through the mid 90's to finally release by then. It seems like it makes sense due to that transition period.

I think this is the right idea, mainly that developers had to consider bigger teams for bigger games, expanding technical, art and music teams. A major step up that must have made RPG development way more complex to be managed to deliver a game that would not disappoint.
There was a change in player expectations from 2D sprites to 3D graphics with a lot of spectacle allowed by sound cards, increased memory from both bigger HD and greater RAM (16/32 DRA/SDRAM). These more complex games even had to run in Windows 95 or later 98.
It must have been complicated to manage and deliver a good game even for established studios, which is why the mid 90s were a weird era if your game wasn't a simple 3D platformer/shooter.

Also, I think this was the time when consoles began to really take off with 3D games (PS1, N64), and so a lot of the focus was on them due to the hardware and development environment being consistent so you only had to focus on a singular machine design. PCs were changing pretty rapidly, new 3D video cards (and sound cards) were being released at an extremely fast pace (In one year, I upgraded my video card 3 times to be able to handle new things coming out and sound cards were just as bad in all the types and effects they were releasing). Add windows changing dramatically in the same time space and it would be very risky for a developer to focus on PC games of any real major complexity.

It is why I was also kind of ****** at consoles. I was always PC game driven and then... well... everyone was focused on them... it sucked.

[Roguey]

Everyone struggled with rapidly changing tech. Ended up killing the oldies like SSI, Origin, New World Computing, Sir-Tech. Tim Cain spent three years on making a new engine for Fallout and it was only good for one quick-turnaround sequel before it was hopelessly out of date. The Infinity Engine was a godsend for Interplay.

00s-era console limitations were awful, but they stabilized things.

[Irenaeus]

Everyone struggled with rapidly changing tech. Ended up killing the oldies like SSI, Origin, New World Computing, Sir-Tech. Tim Cain spent three years on making a new engine for Fallout and it was only good for one quick-turnaround sequel before it was hopelessly out of date. The Infinity Engine was a godsend for Interplay.

Agree.

00s-era console limitations were awful, but they stabilized things.

In terms of game engine it stabilized but I hated how it ended up due to the changing culture of the 00s: even more *******, more women, more hate for white men and civilization. By the 2010s it was even worse and then GamerGate happened in 2014 that really sped up the enshittification of gaming. At least on a mainstream/AAA level, obviously indie games released from small teams of white men were still good.

[Tweed]

And those ******* still wanted Cain to turn it into Diablo. Of course, the ******* at Blizzard wanted Brevik to make Diablo real time and they ended up being absolutely right.

It wasn't that 97 had a sudden deluge of titles over 95 and 96, but the innovation and quality of everything released in that year alone blotted out everything that came before*

*not everything

[Norfleet]

no rpgs in the 50s

Untrue, RPG-7 was released in 1958.

[Xenich]

no rpgs in the 50s

Untrue, RPG-7 was released in 1958.

And people used to complain about having to swap discs...

1_Rw22Amb5WPnSI9PgZ0eKjg.webp

[rusty_shackleford]

counterpoint to tech argument:
Most of these studios were still releasing games, they just shifted genres.

[Roguey]

counterpoint to tech argument:
Most of these studios were still releasing games, they just shifted genres.

SSI's last internally developed single player D&D game was Wake of the Ravager, which was notorious for its gamebreaking bugs. The Crimson Sands MMO was even worse.

Ultima VIII was a disappointment, Ultima IX was a disaster.

Might and Magic had one last big hit with 6, then diminishing returns with 7, 8 (both same-engine sequels), and 9 (Lithtech disaster).

The story of why it took Wizardry 8 so long to come out is bizarre and hilarious.

Games were taking longer to make. 1995 was a terrible year for crpg releases, but Fallout, Baldur's Gate, and Daggerfall were all in development. It wasn't possible to bang out a game on a new engine in 1-2 years anymore and they had already scraped the barrel with their previous engine reuse.

[rusty_shackleford]

counterpoint to tech argument:
Most of these studios were still releasing games, they just shifted genres.

SSI's last internally developed single player D&D game was Wake of the Ravager, which was notorious for its gamebreaking bugs. The Crimson Sands MMO was even worse.

Ultima VIII was a disappointment, Ultima IX was a disaster.

Might and Magic had one last big hit with 6, then diminishing returns with 7, 8 (both same-engine sequels), and 9 (Lithtech disaster).

The story of why it took Wizardry 8 so long to come out is bizarre and hilarious.

Games were taking longer to make. 1995 was a terrible year for crpg releases, but Fallout, Baldur's Gate, and Daggerfall were all in development. It wasn't possible to bang out a game on a new engine in 1-2 years anymore and they had already scraped the barrel with their previous engine reuse.

how does this address the fact that most of these studios were making non-RPGs

[DemoGraph]

counterpoint to tech argument:
Most of these studios were still releasing games, they just shifted genres.

Came here to say this.
Doom happened.

[Roguey]

counterpoint to tech argument:
Most of these studios were still releasing games, they just shifted genres.

SSI's last internally developed single player D&D game was Wake of the Ravager, which was notorious for its gamebreaking bugs. The Crimson Sands MMO was even worse.

Ultima VIII was a disappointment, Ultima IX was a disaster.

Might and Magic had one last big hit with 6, then diminishing returns with 7, 8 (both same-engine sequels), and 9 (Lithtech disaster).

The story of why it took Wizardry 8 so long to come out is bizarre and hilarious.

Games were taking longer to make. 1995 was a terrible year for crpg releases, but Fallout, Baldur's Gate, and Daggerfall were all in development. It wasn't possible to bang out a game on a new engine in 1-2 years anymore and they had already scraped the barrel with their previous engine reuse.

how does this address the fact that most of these studios were making non-RPGs

Studios have multiple teams. Can you say for certain that the RPG teams were dispersed to other games?

[rusty_shackleford]

Can you say for certain that the RPG teams were dispersed to other games?

yea I click the credits and check what games the individual developers worked on

[Roguey]

Can you say for certain that the RPG teams were dispersed to other games?

yea I click the credits and check what games the individual developers worked on

I did that with a few and just got more RPGs. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯