>>406547
>Lotta people were, and for some reason there's this massive rewrite of history where normal faggots are saying they would have gotten into game sooner but the nerds were icky and perverts.
I think part of it is because there were still different demographics at play. When people here say vidya was mainstream in the early '80s, it was still largely a male hobby, with females only playing rarely and casually. But it was pretty normal among younger males. And through the '90s and 2000s, girls were still largely not interested and might think you were a nerd, and some particular types of boys might be the same way, but most boys liked vidya, and most girls, even if not interested, wouldn't be utterly repulsed. Of course they might be more attracted to the chads that did stuff other than play vidya, but that's a bit of a different thing. So it might have been "normal" and "popular," but not among those of the social elite. Those people are a small minority, though.
>1996
>Pokemon
If you were in Japan. A few years early for the rest of the world. Also, though Internet was becoming much more popular, by 1996 it was still a thing that not everyone was super familiar with. Nerds were super familiar with it, but everyone else was still at the point of being interested but not well versed. Or they used it for very specific uses.
>'90s PC games
Diablo was no different than Doom. Very cool games that broke into mainstream vidya popularity, but not quite enough to make gaming PCs compete significantly with consoles. Other popular PC games would come along, too, like Rollercoaster Tycoon, and The Sims (though I bet many players played console ports of that one), but really PC gaming didn't become even close to as mainstream as consoles until Steam and The Orange Box (which remember was ported to consoles because PC gaming still wasn't that big a market in comparison yet).
>hatred of jocks
I didn't say people hated jocks. I just referenced them existing. Might just call them chads today. The cool boys that girls liked more. Those guys definitely played some games earlier in life, but by high school many would have stopped and seen it as childish. You're overlooking that games were seen as a younger person's hobby, and probably still are, but the age at which it started being seen as a little weird increased over time.
>>406548
>They always have been as the first video games developed using mainframe were utilizing text-only displays and output.
I know they've been traditionally considered video games, but I do think they stretch the definition.
>>406548
>There were earlier computer games that functioned as a book delivering the story and player actions, and a calulator used to crunch the numbers.
Yes. There are also game books that have you track stats and items and points, and even ones that let you pick directions (N/S/E/W) just like a text adventure. They're functionally exactly the same as a text adventure, just printed out.
>What's the difference?
What's the difference between Buzz Lightyear and Monopoly? What's the difference between basketball and a basketball? Goals and rules. A ball isn't a game, it's just used in a game. A toy isn't even necessarily used in a game.
>IIRC, there was some video games cracked by loading them into an Excell spreadsheet.
I've heard people have gotten Doom to run in Notepad, I assume with ASCII art or whatever. But the point there is that it uses the text to make pictures, and then makes the pictures move. That makes it into video.
>And that's the part where I have to say that you're full of shit.
Sure, but at least explain why you think my reasoning is bad. Some are games, but some aren't. Fans will often tell you that some are just a collaborative storytelling medium more than a "game."
>You mean like how that one Senran Kagura game simulated breast physics with the joycon controllers?
Yeah, a bit like that. What if you had a titty shaped controller and the game was manipulating it just right to get the nipples hard or find breast cancer or something? If that's not a video game, would that become a video game if you attached it to a screen and had a video of a girl's face reacting, even if that video information wasn't actually relevant to the gameplay, since all gameplay important info would be delivered via tactile feedback?
>everything about video games is self-imposed.
No. Most games have stated goals and rules to play within to reach those goals. The only "self-imposition" is deciding to play or not.
>I can load up a map in Quake 3 and just wonder around for however long it takes for the timer to run out exploring ever nook and cranny and just playing around with the weapons.
You're not playing the game, you're playing with the game. There's a difference. I can open up a Monopoly box and then proceed to roleplay with the wheelbarrow and shoe. That's not "playing Monopoly."
>why should I care?
You don't need to care. It's just a definitional argument. Do what you want. Just in your example, you're not playing the game, you're playing with the game. Go ahead. I don't give a fuck.
>>406551
This is a good point. Excel can be used as a game engine, as you can play games in it, but it isn't a game in itself. Perhaps the same could be said for things like The Sims.