*bleep bloop*

Wasn't the worst DRM during the 2000-2009 period instead?

What I don't understand is why so many here choose to focus on AAA games when it comes to 2010+ and disregard the innovations of indies, even though the topic is about games you liked and not the state of the AAA industry. I get it if you dreamt of all the possibilities in big money mainstream gaming nowadays and are disappointed by the actual direction it's taking, but that's just capitalism for you. The innovative games of the 90's weren't created by big teams with huge budgets either.

90s

only good thing about 00s was WOW vanilla
late 80s very good. there's a reason emus are very popular.

1990s up front. Graphics peaked at that point, anything beyond that is for the most part excessive. Gameplay was not streamlined but was just where it needed to be. The magic was still alive.

2010s. The revival renaissance was great, but the best part is the 2010s have access to the other decades. Unfortunately, having access still can't capture the feeling of physically being there.

1980s. Creative, but gameplay was still fairly obtuse.

2000s. While some incredible games came out of this decade, it also marked the rise of the graphics and console wars. The creative side of things was sidelined for catering to a wider audience.

Subjective, of course.

Mm, maybe I've been too imprecise there.
I'll change it to include titles like Prince of Persia, Super Mario Bros and early point & click.

#1 for me is 1990-1999: Pacific General, Imperium Galactica, Close Combat, Master of Orion 1+2, Caesar, War Wind, Deadlock, Jagged Alliance, and so on and so on. In many ways I think it was the best time for strategy games.

#2 is 2000-2009: Hostile Waters, Startopia, Sudden Strike 2, Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin, Impossible Creatures, Ghost Master, Space Colony, Massive Assault, Patrician 3, and so on.

The 1980-1989 period for me was gaming as a social thing to do with friends and my brother; Nintendo, Sega, C64 and all that. It wasn't until we got a PC that gaming became something I would mostly do on my own.

For me 2010-2019 was upheld by the Indie game "explosion" and mid-developer boom, which revived genres and sub-genres from the past, as well as modernizing them and fusing them with other genres. I think it really took off in this period. WIthout the Indie & Mid-developer growth we would mainly have generic games to play, as far as new games are concerned. So to me, the 2010+ period is still a very good one.

I don't think the decade overall was any worse than today. The first 4-5 years were still disc based (Steam only arrived in 2004-2005) and mostly consisted of simple offline disc checks. Many of these games had their DRM officially removed after 3-4 years. Eg, Operation Flashpoint Cold War Crisis (2001) SafeDisc was patched out by the mid 2000's in patch v1.96. Same with Diablo 2 (patch v1.12), many Gold / GOTY re-releases removed the earlier disc checks. The latter half was bad (Securom PA with limited activations, Games For Windows Live, etc) but is 4x layers of DRM (Steam + uPlay + Denuvo + VMProtect) on modern Ubisoft games, or Denuvo-style "Arxan" on Age of Empires HD (vs DRM-Free on the DVD-ROM Collectors Edition), or locking mods behind Steam Workshop (invented in 2012) really much of an "improvement"? I don't see today's DRM situation as better at all, we've just swapped one set of issues (limited activations) for several others.

2010-2019: better graphics on all budget levels, refined gameplay from test audiences or indies, QOLs make everything easier, faster loading times, voice acting for immersiveness, snappier animations, controller support with whatever I like. There's no reason for me to go back to anything pre-2007 again except for academic or nostalgic purposes. Most of the games I've enjoyed are from this decade.

2000-2009: lot of janky 3D games besides the 2D kind. Unfortunately, many of these game didn't age well without a remaster / remake IMO. I owned a Playstation, Dreamcast, and Wii during this time and dear lord when I recall playing, the graphics were awful, the gameplay is sluggish, and the load times were awful. I really enjoyed my time with the Wii, however, since my entire family could play it.

At the risk of me looking like no fun again, could it be because the indies as a whole aren't really as innovative as they get credit for? With gaming, I look for full experiences I can own DRM-free, with immersive worlds I can get lost in. We know that this need isn't being served by modern AAA gaming in quite some time (mainly because of cutting games into a billion pieces to sell as DLC, and insisting on DRM schemes or simply having the game be online-only). However, this need is not being served by many indies either. Indies are often short, reduced experiences for whatever reason..,And I don't mean that as a slight, I would say it is valid for a game to have arcade style gameplay and work with bite-sized playthroughs; however, it is just not generally what I am seeking. The exceptions are some of the deeper roleplaying indies (The Age of Decadence) or the ones with clearly bigger production values (Kingdom Come: Deliverance, which I think is a better game than Skyrim).

Eh, you're right, but it's quite difficult to sort those periods properly.
From the point of originality, the only order would probably be from past to present.
But I tried to mix in various factors and personal feelings.

For example, I didn't experience the arcades period fully, so I have few nostalgia for it.
Also I never liked too much the repetitive score-based "infinite" gameplay of those days.
Thank god games evolved into something more cool (and private) later :P

To me, the most recent decade, and for a few reasons.

First, you can emulate games from most platforms that have already been released without much hassle. All you need to do is find a way to dump the games from cartridges/disks/discs/arcade machines, as well as the required OS files, or find an official seller/rightholder that distributes those files.

And if you want to play them in their original platforms, you can find most hardware and game medias being sold in international sites.

Then there's the tendency of games getting cheaper, as well as legit DRM free being a thing now.

And there's the indie explosion previously mentioned, and these indies, many actually good, you'd never see in older devices because of the approval process for new releases.

So tl;dr: you have access to most past of the gaming history, as well as having far more freedom now.

1980-1989
1990-1999
2010-2019
2000-2009

I find that I can return to early 80s games, particularly single board arcade games, very comfortably. Easy to learn, tough to master gameplay that emphasizes speed and pattern recognition over memorization or grinding. Lots of creativity that offsets the primitive technology.

The 90s were arguably the peak of PC gaming, especially for RPGs and strategy. FPSs became a big deal. Explosion of 3D graphics which had good and bad effects, but it was interesting at least. The thing that really drags it down for me is that console gaming seemed to get caught in a vortex of lazy side-scrolling platformers featuring characters that were either overly cute or "WITH ATTITUDE!" Also we had that awkward phase of everyone pushing digitized or pre-rendered graphics, which has mostly aged really badly.

The 2000s were when the industry tried to murder PC gaming for dubious reasons and AAA gaming pretty much went all to hell. The industry tried to push online multiplayer and MMOs, which I've never liked.

The 2010s...AAA games still suck balls (and perhaps always will at this point) but the explosion of indie games, crowdfunding, and the reemergence of mid-sized games means some quality is sneaking back in if you know where to look.

but it does seem you don't take the whole " but dude, we where discussing games " aspect into your considerations. Every era has had its own quirks as in the 80's as the age of wonders , the 90's as the new upcoming media segment the 00's as the next best thing the 10's as in moneymaking in progress and current day well... of course we need a few more years before we can decide what to call the 20's..... and every era had a game that defined that age pretty well, take Tetris for example or later on Super Mario of course those same games , well maybe outside tetris and another happy few won't can't have the same impact on a gamer as they did as when they where released, time spirit and such...
it seems that only if you belong to those lucky enough ( well that is a pov ofc ) to be able to enjoy any game from any time in the same mindset as the first time that lucky individual touched base in that particular game then your points hold merit
ofc who am i to voice such a verdict ?
so there's that, everyone is entitled to their own corner of bliss and truth

edit: half life could be another definer of the 90's

Well, those are two different topics, I think. One is the question of innovation, the other is catering to your personal preferences, giving you what you expect. If indies would mainly do the latter, how would that be innovative?

It is true though that a lot of indie and AA games cater to what people liked in the 90s and miss nowadays, instead of coming up with completely new ideas. There are new ideas, too, but they often consist of refinements or new combinations rather than whole new genres out of nowhere. Though when was the last time someone invented something 100% new, without basing it on what's already there?

The 2010-2019 decade brought us e.g. the genre of rogue-lites with many original titles and different subgenres (Spelunky in 2008 already, but most others later, like FTL, Hand of Fate, Slay the Spire, Tower of Guns etc.), as well as sandbox/crafting games (Minecraft started in 2009, but really took off in the following decade, then there was Terraria, then games like Subnautica - which by the way does offer a bigger immersive world to get lost in). Telltale came up with a formula for more casual and cinematic adventure games without obscure puzzles, which was not welcomed by all P&C veterans, but lead to much beloved titles like Life Is Strange. And as much as people hate on them or want to declare them "not games", Walking Simulators are kind of a new genre, too. I know the urge is probably strong for some to say that these genres are turns for the worse, but that's not a criterion for innovation, it's just about personal preferences. And these genres did not replace anything but broadened the spectrum; and there are enough players who enjoy them.

Anyway, back to the matter of your personal preference, immersive worlds to get lost in: You say there are a few exceptions of games offering that even today. That suggests that in previous decades there were a lot more games catering to that preference. Can you give a few examples?