Then, my stepdaughter took over and taught me the game. I was amazed by what an incredible teacher she was! And, I was more amazed by how much I learned about her playing Minecraft with her. That's still one of my peak experiences in step-parenting and I hope that's a memory that I will hold onto until the end of my days.
One particular moment still makes me laugh. As I mentioned, she was an incredible teacher with an ability to teach through stories and an incredible amount of patience with me. So, I said, "You know, you should become a teacher." She gave me a look that can best (and only) be described as her stinkeye and said, "I don't want to be a teacher. I want to be normal."
Part of learning is learning to teach, to share the skills and knowledge we have. It isn’t strictly necessary, but we know more is revealed when we attempt to impart a skill or knowledge because we are forced to use our Beginners Mind.
Lots of kids will just do this as part of play. I think it’s important to continue doing as we age, but maybe that’s just my secret desire to be a teacher. As tradesperson at a company with two new apprentices each year that desire is fulfilled.
Lately I'm reading the ancient philosophy texts and thinking about what it was like to learn back then. Plato had Socrates (who didn't believe in writing!) and he had to compete with other younger students for his favor. This meant not only participating in the conversations available but also making himself available to them. Can you imagine how different the learning experience would be if teachers just made themselves available from 9am-3pm every day, and students could choose to fill all or none of their time in their company? Like if spontaneous moments of brilliance came about when something like a high school german instructor bumped into a legendary cognitive science professor and together, they discovered a new idea at the intersection. And teachers and students (who made the effort to be there) could have been there to witness the whole thing. To see the joy of learning something new, on the two faces who only together made it possible. And to themselves learn something new from it. It's amazing stuff when we let it be.
The situation in which we find ourselves today, both ends of the dialogue are confused about what to do. The students aren't sure what to seek out, and they seem to rely more on luck and fate to assemble an understanding of the world for them. This makes me think no one is telling them what they're capable of, or about all of the lifetimes of enjoyment they can find in the world without spending a cent, only their time. There are millenia of human histories to explore and help them find their place, but the teachers on the other end are seeing the lack of interest in their methods and are taking it personally.
We need a much more flexible perspective on education, and I think a big part of that is becoming great teachers in our own lines of work like you're doing. We simply cannot put "learning" in a box and on a store shelf and expect the next generation to just pick it up. This is a life-long journey for all of us, and it can be a life-long joy if we help others see and feel the value of living!
So, it isn't intuitive, but my 6 year old can do pretty much everything in the game now. Mostly her older brother showed her. So, I dunno, maybe it is lonely, but in the same way building Lego is lonely.
But also, I dont really think Minecraft is like lego. You can play it like lego, but you dont have to.
My kids have never finished the game and pretty much only play creative mode.
I didn't think you meant it negatively. Just an interesting way to describe it.
All that while whole game is remarkably low stress and zen-like. In survival, you will dig for hours for material. And you can also get stress if you want to and you can put yourself in danger if you want to.
Funny how that works out -- I learned to touch-type because of Runescape.
I heard there's websites with videos demoing game play.
(There was this youngster with an ipad that seemed to spend quite a few hours watching them. Perhaps more than playing the game.)
However, fining good beginner videos is not that easy (how to move, set it on creative at first, look you can fly etc) and watching videos is time consuming for adults. The ratio of noise vs information is very very low.
The better documented example of this is when Blue's Clues needed to run the same episode multiple times a week. Everyone thought their ratings would tank, but instead they spiked.
I still haven't played Minecraft, but this makes me want to learn how from a kid.
I later found out all games have a specific pattern you follow to win, many of these patterns are available in online communities/guides/cheat sections where I'd spend tons of time to read, try and experiment. Those were probably the peak happiness and best time I've enjoyed as a little nerdy kid. I never thought too much a big deal of these experiences but nonetheless I believe definitely contributed to a base reality of how resource management work, and how I manage my personal projects, finance, and career choices as I grew up.
I'd be super curious to see research / longitudinal study coming up from the past 2-3 decades of gaming on kids, and see if conservative gaming styles leads to conservative financial decisions etc etc.
I'm not a father yet but I thought it would be a really cool idea to understand my kid through game play like this, but I also don't want the kids to be limited by my personal value though these interactions - sort of like the "observer and supporter" role the author played.
Sidenote: I'm still playing the latest Civ6 and still enjoy a lot from the dynamics in the economy managements with A.I..
Real world economics is infinitely more complex than the handful of rules in a game.
In reality you generally don't want to have 40 years of suck to get to some long term gain, because you need to live those 40 years.
USA in 1980 was already a developed nation with a high relative standard of living. It could only grow GDP by inventing new technology and process not simply import proven tech.
China's continued failures are massive and ongoing. Some numbers look ok relative to their past failures but that's about it.
I don't think that's really true. I don't think any game company or designer cares about forcing a pet economic theory to work.
More that game economies have a purpose and can be explicitly modelled to achieve that purpose, even if that means doing unrealistic things (such as conjure up resources out of nowhere). That's not too say that they can't be an effective test model for real world scenarios, if you bear those conceits in mind.
If an economy makes players have a bad time, they can jump ship in a way that they can't do in the real world. There is a financial incentive for game designers to build an economy that makes players satisfied. Strictly modelling a game on real life economic policies is usually not a good way to achieve this. Vast resource inequality between players is a good way to kill a multiplayer game, for example - unless you even the divide in some way, only those at the very top want to keep playing.
As an adjacent example, City Skylines is a pretty fun city builder. A huge simulation, down to very complex traffic models. You can build sprawling cities with a bunch of highways.
But it's extremely hard to build anything that replicates old European cities, or denser cities like in Asia, because your smallest useful road is very big in relation to the buildings. The tools given to you basically point you directly to American-style zoning that leads to suburban sprawl and huge highway systems.
In a sense, that's the point of the game (to make you fight traffic), but it's difficult if you are trying to build a certain kind of city that we know exist and are, in fact, "better cities".
The simulation presents a certain worldview of how cities are built.
For example, mixing commercial and residential buildings - will it work or not?
Some weeks ago a co-worker told me something similar to what you share, how he learned about resources while playing SimCity. He also said his younger sister asked him "If people doesn't have money, why doesn't the government print money and gives it to people?". He said that playing SimCity would have prevented his sister from asking such a naive question.
I also would love so see the results of research about these games on kids. Maybe someday kids will play Sim City and AoE at elementary school or similar games designed for schools.
This is a pretty bold claim and not one that should be stated as fact.
Now if only i could figure out a way to get more people to live in my SIM tower!
Give everyone a million bucks and you'd have a booming economy.
It probably depends on whether your economy is limited by consumer demand or by insufficient investments. For most developed nations it is clearly limited by consumer demand. Giving rich people more money aka 'trickle down' won't get the rich people to invest, because there is no demand (normal people already spend more than 100% of their income)
In this situation giving away money helicopter style makes sense.
Because people are not systemically important financial institutions :)
Whatever the reason, the empirical observation in these days of low inflation seems to be that most governments aren't even close to the true limit of spending.
Couple of questions:
- Does this mean that there’s a case for QE to be made permanent under a low-inflation environment?
- Under this model, govermnents would be directly responsible for the allocation of the newly created money. How can this not lead to a depressed economic output over time?
- Where can I read more about this?
Depressing economic output: Absent inflation, economic output is proportional to overall spending, so a policy like this can't depress economic output almost by definition.
However, I'd say there is a risk of directing that output towards useless things, plus there's the risk of favouritism that leads to hidden inflation via inefficiency (see also: military industrial complex). So it matters where the money is spent.
Personally, I'd like to try something like a "citizen's dividend": just hand out money to all citizens equally each month (or permanent residents, you can argue the details), no questions asked and no strings attached, but vary the amount based on current inflation. That is, increase the dividend when inflation is low, scale it back when inflation rises above some target.
So kind of like a UBI, but with a macroeconomic motivation rather than trying to replace the welfare system. It also appeals to me because it's a sort of direct democratic approach to macroeconomic management: people can literally vote with their wallet about how the money is spent.
Where to read more: modern monetary theory is a good keyword to start with. I found Randall Wray's book very interesting. Warren Mosler's "7 deadly innocent frauds" is less academic, but it's available online and interesting since it comes from a practitioner instead of a theoretician. Though I admit it's been many years since I read either.
1) The government sprays more money around in welfare and salaries than they raise through taxes
2) The government issues bonds
3) The central bank prints money to buy those bonds
It's equivalent to the central bank printing money to pay for welfare programs and salaries (which go to common people in the streets)
It's easy trot out the "but the bureaucracy!" argument.
Helicopter money is in-your-face money creation which brings out the gold bugs and inflation hyperventilators. QE as practiced is in comparison too mysterious for people to latch on to effectively.
Helicopter money was never really championed by anybody in the first place, so nobody really had to argue against it.
It's really unfortunate that a perfectly reasonable policy never got a fair chance. I do think it has a lot to do with ideological bias especially among central bankers, and with the fact that a lot of people on the left, who should naturally be in favour of such a policy, are too averse to studying economics and finance thoroughly enough to participate effectively in such discussions.
All of my 401k is in money market mutual funds.
I'm not sure that a straight up games-to-financial-decision type study would be useful, there are many different motivations between playing games or even gambling, and financial decisions.
Or, more bluntly: There’s nothing like being acutely aware how easily you can lose your stack on a bad gamble to make you invest your savings wisely. :)
Aside from being influenced by government advertising (“This airport in a no-man’s land is going to develop the no-man’s land into a city!”), it also influenced my entrepreneur life: Why see small when you can invest all you have and get increasingly more return? Why spend time debugging when I could have this other big feature on the marketing material? And that’s why I never went past a few hours in Simcity, and why my cousin, a less entreprising person, would succeed more! Ha!
What a cautionary tale.
I recently had the pleasure of reviving a game world my brother & I had built three years ago. Wandering around that was a nice trip through nostalgia. These kids will be able to do that for their ten year old selves, all the way up.
People should not forget to take pictures and movies and make them physical, instead of dumping it on the internet.
Having a small amount of pictures is more than enough, that make those events even more special.
I had a lot of gaming memories saved on Xfire. They stopped their service a couple years ago and all the contents and thus the strong link to memories are gone. Just like people you have had contact with online, eventually you'll loose contact and then these pictures can help you not forgetting that time...
Maybe we are making and processing so many events, that we'll get issues remembering stuff in a couple years?
I want to dump the save files but I haven’t quite found the right equipment at the right price. Does anyone know of some electronics that are not too expensive and that can be used to dump the save games onto a Linux computer?
One thing I wish I had access to though were the builds I've done on public servers.
I think maybe 4 is a little young to ask a kid not to let their emotions drive them. But by the time they get to ages 6-10, video games can be a valuable tool for teaching time / life balance. Better to figure out at a young age that you have cravings to screw around when you should be doing something else, and you have to resist or bad things will happen.
Better they figure it out as a kid when "Bad things will happen" means "Parents will be mad." It's a lot tougher on them if they have to figure it out when they're a young adult, and "Bad things will happen" means "Flunking college" or "Losing a job."
Too many young adults can't deal with managing free time when they're first out on their own, and there are actual consequences to it at that point in their life.
Source: Was a kid once, was a young adult once, saw a couple other young adults wash out of college because nobody'd ever taught them how to stop playing video games when it starts to interfere with what they need to do.
What scares me even more is seeing parents of younger kids, giving them their phone and letting them watch episodes of Peppa Pig or similar, all the time. Guess it works to keep them quiet though...
4yr-old is very young for video games.
Giving your child video games is like giving him beer. (I learned this from bitter experience.)
Also, a four year old is probably too young to be drinking beer but I don't think beer with a low ABV (0.5-2.5%) is particularly bad for older children as long as they don't drink enough to get drunk. I could be wrong about that though.
I would leave them rare materials or dyes in chests and see what they would come up with.
The fun part was that we didn't have to play at the same time, every now and then I would log in and they'd have left something in my house to let me know they found my hide out.
We eventually invited some of their friends and a co-worker's kid who was getting griefed in public servers.
Every so often we'll spend an evening on the couch playing some co-op or competitive game but we don't spend much time in our Terraria world anymore.
I should check it out and see what's become of it.
I'm loving the 2D aspect which makes it easier to find stuff, and that pickaxes don't wear out - that sort of thing. Also the number of things to discover is greater. As an adult, combat mechanics are more interesting.
You get to keep your character between games, so those rare items you find - you get to keep them.
Additionally, it's super easy to connect to a friend via Steam. On the LAN it just works every time, no need to manually enter IP address and remember the port; also I hated having to pay a monthly fee for Realms just to let my son play with his geographically distant cousin.
Son is 7 and loves a bit of action; probably wouldn't want anyone too much younger, Minecraft in creative mode is far more suitable for younger kids.
That phrase is usually used on something that's positive, after something that's negative. Notice that most of the examples use the word "boring" for the former thing they're talking about.
The person that replied to you probably just assumed you were using it the same way. I don't think I've ever seen anyone use it on 2 things they liked before.
However just because Terraria feels fresh having just discovered it, I'm not going to say it's automatically better. Only long term play would decide that. They're quite different games although they share certain elements.
The full game isn't available all the time and has to be discovered tonit gives you something to work towards.
Minecraft far and away is the game we play together most of the time. Alas it has finally gotten old to us.
One Christmas we played eve online. That was a great bit of fun. Bit of a time sink though.
I wish The Long Dark had coop.
Warhammer Vermintide 2, Left For Dead 1/2 or Borderlands 2 for FPS coop. Dead Space 3 if you don't mind a few scares. Ark is decent for PvE coop.
Portal 2 for puzzles. Rocket League for sporty action (albeit coop vs other people). Throw in Factorio for building.
Path of Exile/Diablo 3/Torchlight 2 for ARPG.
StarCraft 2 for RTS.
But overall I'm with you, I feel all games can be enhanced with coop.
I don't think there is anything wrong with competition. I think it's the company that makes the experience.
I always wondered about my nephews fascination for minecraft. This is probably one of the main reasons.
But there is another darker Minecraft world he operates with entire subspecies of Minecraft being chained helplessly in dark towers making lava derived net worth in a very Faustian "it's just a machine" life. Even their bodies when done with plummet into trains, to be taken for subsequent processing. We do talk about this. Will he introduce his daughter to mechanized entity-farming? How will he vocalise the stages? "This is where the bodies are taken to be turned into chicken food for the egg factory..."
And how does minecraft compare to Lego Worlds? I've played Terraria in the past, but that seems too hard for that age - at least for kids who aren't really intrinsically interested in video games like mine. Maybe one day...
(Could probably google this, but I imagine there must be ppl here who have actual experience)
Um I'm pretty sure if you don't go overboard on the lighting monsters spawn. This is more of an in-game thing than a preference thing.
2. I didn't specify because the discussion was on the number of torches placed, but the problem is not just the visual piece. It's the requirement that the player understand an invisible mechanic. Magnum torches don't fix the underlying issue.
3. Turning off mobs is not a reasonable solution.
I'm not talking about using the current system to prevent spawning, I'm talking about making a better spawning system. There are a ton of ways the game could handle spawning rules and making an area safe:
* Could track what blocks were naturally generated vs. placed by hand, and spawn enemies away from player made structures.
* Could refuse to spawn mobs around any blocks that don't spawn naturally.
* Could track visited areas in a separate file per chunk, creating a sort of lightmap for what the player can see, and only spawn enemies in unvisited areas.
* Could create more detailed rules about where mobs spawn, such as having zombies rise out of the dirt or endermen falling from the sky.
* Could decouple the lighting system from the radius-based safety. For example: enchanted items that work sort of like a magnum torch. Or (a closed loop of) crafted fences/walls could prevent spawning. (3D presents issues of course)
* Could use a game-of-life style system to track migrations/populations of friendly and hostile mobs on a per-chunk basis.
* Could mix and match from the above.
And that's just from less than five minutes of brainstorming.
I played some Quake back in the day, it's not like 3d games are totally new to me. Still, I felt completely incompetent. Does anyone know what someone should do to get past these first few days? I keep reading articles like these on the internet about how kids build fantastic structures, but how do you do that if half the game is basically about being hunted down by mindless killers?
I feel like there's some key aspect I don't understand. Any tips?
Start with your son in creative mode and practice building basic stuff. Then learn how to go survival mode watching some youtube tutorials.
Small kids really enjoy creating their own houses, towns and megacaves in creative, when they feel comfortable they ask to go to survival on their own.
Then they discover roblox (that has hundreds of mods) and there is no back!
Hope it helps.
Usually it's easier to mine a couple of blocks of wood, kill 3 same-coloured sheep, make a bed. Then just build a prison of earth around you, including a roof, to stop mobs (ie monsters) getting in. If you can't make the bed, just entomb yourself and wait for morning!
When I've played survival with my stepdaughter, in the beginning, we usually spend our days collecting resources to craft torches, doors and pickaxes, then spend our nights underground, where we build large mines (and often build elaborate underground structures). We keep this up until we have a steady food supply, good quality armour/weapons and lighted defensive structures outside.
This is so incredibly nostalgic.
I should try getting it to run again sometime.
Transport Tycoon Deluxe, was the first game I did a all-nighter at 11 years old; parents was not happy!
But it was the first game the whole family played; and my dad liked it because he believed it thought us how to interact with windows ui's... little did he know later in live I will fall in-love with tmux(screen alternative) and groom a unix beard.
For anyone interested, there a open source version, true to the original.
It was/is a disappointing experience.
Then when redstone came out you had the ability to create some seriously cool contraptions (though I was never particularly good at that).
Playing with friends is much more fun, and there are a lot of cool adventure maps around if you're into those.
I guess playing on PC has a lot more perks when it comes to custom worlds and mods. Certain Modpacks introduced oil, gass, and engines and all kind of cool stuff.
If only all kids were so innocent. Maybe he's just young. It'd be mildly amusing to read this from the perspective of a parent horrified that their son developed into one of those raging lunatics that occasionally haunt Dota 2.
When I was about 14 or so, I used to play this oldschool game called Underlight. It was a roleplaying game unlike any other, before or since: You're forced to play a character. You're not allowed to talk about real life or even admit that real life exists at all.
It was so cool, mostly because this was the world of adults. This was also before the era of voice chat, so they had no clue I was 14.
It was also around that time that I was discovering myself, and it usually took the form of various relationships with various women. These relationships could feel quite real, though it was solely a text-based medium. And "sex" was obviously involved, or as close to it as you can get. (On the forums it was called "Quality Roleplaying," or QRP, hah.)
That was a very small component of the game, but it was there. The point was that it emulated real life in a few ways. There were politics. There were 8 "houses" (basically clans), with various leaders. I even participated in a murder once, an extremely rare event in any game. It was true murder, in a sense, because you're not allowed to log in to your character after that, and only a select few people ever had the ability. It cost 10 points of health permanently. It was basically the world of Harry Potter, and I was in Slytherin. So we had certain abilities that no one knew existed, one of which was the ability to end other characters. As far as I know, this ability was used only three times in the history of the game, so it was quite lucky to see it firsthand.
My dad once came down and sat behind me, perhaps out of curiosity. Unfortunately this was right in the middle of one of the QRP sessions. I spent about 20 minutes doing nothing but staring at the screen and frantically clearing the text whenever she said anything. He never understood what was going on. Eventually he got bored and left, and I was able to pick up right where we left off. Quite hilarious in retrospect. He never bothered to try to understand what I spent so much time doing, and I certainly never offered any info.
Video games are an increasingly important component of childrens' habits, and we shouldn't be quick to dismiss or trivialize their positive effects. I wasn't so good at writing until a few years of being forced to be.
I'd recommend a server like Baystation 12 if you're looking to get involved in an RP server. A small bit of googling can point you in the right direction.
I fell in love there once. We spent a lovely summer canoeing down a river. When she had to board the plane home, we both cried for an hour leading up to it.
Is this a Minecraft PR Piece? Because the games of my childhood were not just action games of the NES. Adventures games made you think and be creative (even more so the text games!) - RTS made you build bases from scratch and react to impending waves of enemies until you finally could crush them. Flight simulators were all about "open world" since you could have missions and the like but let's face it, it was more fun to just fly around and test your plane where you went. Games like 4D driving were also Minecrafty-like since you were encouraged to build your tracks from scratch.
No, really, I don't feel like I missed anything in my childhood by not having Minecraft. If anything, it's sad that Minecraft is so popular that it eclipses everything else for most kids.
You can literally build a computer in Minecraft. I don't like the game, don't like that the developer ripped off the idea, and find the art obnoxious - but you have to admit, it's basically dwarf fortress for kids. That's an order of magnitude more creative than anything we had twenty years ago.
Minecraft and Infiniminer are two very different games, similar in superficial visuals and technological implementation but completely different in terms of gameplay.
Besides, if you enjoy a game and then development of that game stops, what's wrong with making your own?
It's also a shame that really creative game-makers, like ToadyOne or Zach, tend to not do that well - while Notch, who basically copied an entire game, presumably having even read the source code, is now made out of money.
I've no idea about the exact mechanics of the copying - whether he just copied the idea, or copied the implementation from the source, or indeed used parts of the source in his game - but I think these are largely small differences. The real problem I have is it seems like this is basically how our society works - somebody thinks of something cool, then somebody else gets rich / famous / tenure off it, while the person who did most of the work is lucky to get a footnote.
When a game comes out with a 2D tilemap it's not thought of as a clone of the games that came before it. Why does extending the concept to 3D and making it user-editable make it a clone?
As the old saying goes, "If you could have invented Facebook, you would have invented Facebook". Ideas are cheap. Execution is everything.
Infiniminer is a competitive class-based game in a constrained arena. The goal is to get a higher score than your opponents.
Minecraft is a survival game in an infinite world. The goal is to build a base and progress through a tech tree, or to build things for fun.
Ace of Spades is closer to being a ripoff of Infiniminer, though with more of a focus on combat. Minecraft is a game that has a similar (but more polished) aesthetic but with completely different rules.
Star Wars is not a ripoff of Star Trek just because they're both set in space. They're fundamentally different at every level.
An additional factor that made me extra-specially susceptible to this meme is that when I played minecraft, I immediately thought it was essentially a dumbed-down version of dwarf fortress with better graphics. What I saw at the time as the basic innovation - which I think is still what makes dwarf fortress exceptional, is a game that uses a tiling or cubic grid to allow for real creative play, with an attendant focus on mining, survival, and craft.
I don't think Star Wars is a rip-off of star trek, but it absolutely is and was always intended as a derivative work. All the ideas and content was developed in earlier sci-fi. Star Wars was an interesting contribution in terms of execution - and that's exactly why I like it. It had genuinely new ideas about set design and special effects. Minecraft, on the other hand, has no new ideas I can think of.
I still think it's a good game - and I'm very happy that when my kid hits the age where they wanna play games, I can point them to Minecraft and be pretty certain they're not going to be loading naked kidnapped people into a sausage factory (I played GTA2 when I was a kid), or squashing people with tanks, or irradiating them until they turn into mush. I mean, I guess they'll do those things at some point to, but it's nice that there's an actual honest-to-goodness kids game out there that doesn't suck.
Infiniminer is a class-based team FPS in a closed arena. The only thing Minecraft shares with it is the block mechanic.
There's a mental quirk that seems to happen with game mechanics. Do something first, you're a genius; do it for the 100th time, you're iterating on classic gameplay; but do it for the second time, and you're a thief. I don't think it has to be that way.
> It's also a shame that really creative game-makers, like ToadyOne or Zach, tend to not do that well - while Notch, who basically copied an entire game, presumably having even read the source code, is now made out of money.
Last I heard, Toady was making $100,000+ a year off of Dwarf Fortress donations. Zach Barth has been making games full-time since SpaceChem, cranking out successful titles once every year or two for most of the decade. Notch, meanwhile, appears to be miserable, bitter, and directionless.
So that's why it'd be nice when somebody who's come up with a really new idea meet some success - they'd probably have some ideas about what to do with it.
It's not due to the people involved or the money. I think it's the community around Minecraft.
I don't think that's because of either the money or Notch as a persson. It's because of the incredibly toxic community that came up around such a light hearted and simple game.
There's a shitload of backlash whenever he makes anything that's not Minecraft. See his space game with a programmable 6502 or his game jam games or...
Put Toady or Zachtronics under the same microscope and they'll shut down too. Human beings just aren't made for that.
I don't believe that your timeline is correct here.
I mostly made a lot of giant bases and scenarios, but the tooling was quite powerful.
The move to 3D basically killed that for me. Editors became much more complicated. In a way, simplifying the interface for building things in 3D was one of Minecraft's great successes.
It's not because you can that everybody is using it in this way. I mean technically you can make a piece of art with brushes and paint yet almost nobody can.
> That's an order of magnitude more creative than anything we had twenty years ago.
Wow, you just brushed off like 30 years of video games in one sentence, without any argument. Well done.
Not sure why you are making this a personal attack on you? I though this was an interesting read, and something I hadn't thought of before.
You accuse this of being a paid plant because you can’t imagine that someone played different games than you as a child?!
> RTS made you build bases from scratch and react to impending waves of enemies until you finally could crush them. Flight simulators were all about "open world" since you could have missions and the like but let's face it, it was more fun to just fly around and test your plane where you went.
You’re thinking 10-15 years too late.
I accuse them of making a very simplistic comparison against "old video games" while that person does not seem to have much exposure in terms of video games genres in the first place. Either they are ignorant or dishonest. It's difficult to be ignorant these days with the mass of information on the Internet.
Not at all. You could play them on an Amiga or an Atari which were miles more affordable than a PC.