>I started gaming in the 90-s

That's why you don't know about platformers.
The 80-s man, the 80-s. Deep in the Soviet times I got my hands on an Amiga, goddamn, need to go the basement and see if it starts up

I doubt any of the indie developers who make these platformers nowadays were gaming in the 80's bro, I think they were probably in diapers. In fact in style as well as substance I do not think any of these new indie platformers are anything like 80's platformers, maybe on a completely superficial level but the only legitimate "old-school platformer" in terms of the art-style and the gameplay is Volgarr the Viking, and it's getting some serious hate for being as difficult as an 80's platformers.

Most of the indie platformers of today have been scaled down to modern audiences, made very easy, which is why I said superficially. They adopt a pseudo-retro "look" and sell the game based on that, but the difficulty of the old-school platformer is gone completely.

Who said anything about arcades?

They have, kinda. In the late 80s and early 90s, Mario was everywhere. People couldn't get enough. He had comic books, a cartoon show, merchandise in every form and fashion, cameos in tons of other Nintendo games, even a breakfast cereal. The marketing force behind Mario was every bit as powerful and far-reaching as that behind blockbusters like Halo today, if not moreso, and I'm not sure if there's another video game character that has reached the same level of pop culture saturation and recognizability.

I'm out of the console loop, especially the Nintendo loop, so I can't speak for how popular Mario games are nowadays or how much hype is behind them. I can say that his presence in pop culture has died down considerably, and that when I do hear news from console land, it's rarely about Mario. Wikipedia tells me that his games still sell millions, though, so I guess he still has plenty of fans. Old-school Mario fans are probably buying his games for their kids nowadays.

As for what made him popular in the first place - I was quite young at the time (SMB was my first game), so I can't speak with authority, but I would say that it was a combination of factors. Mario was pretty much the face of the new console generation following the 1983 crash, and of the new generation of platformers in particular. Simple controls, tight gameplay, crisp graphics, catchy music, and appealing, kid-friendly characters probably helped cement his appeal to a broad market. When the sprawling SMB3 came along with its traversable world map, tons of powerups and huge enemy and location variety, people lost their minds. Today it's considered a classic of the genre, with good reason.

Mario 64 was an absolute masterwork, the 3D platformer that showed all the others how it's really done. It was the last Mario game I played, though. It was the last core Mario game until the Game Cube, and by that point I was starting to lose interest in consoles. I don't know if his games are still any good or not, and to be honest even the classics are often overrated (as classics tend to be), but given a chance, I'd give a new Mario game a go.

Now you're just trolling, man.

They are easy(-ier) to make. I never found them interesting nor fun except rare original ones like Elasto Mania and Braid.

A tad off topic but as I mentioned earlier I've never been a big platfromer fan and yet I think "Manhattan Project" is beyond great alas no one here seems to really dig it that much. I was tempted to tell the OP to give it a shot but I don't want to push a game that evidently I'm the only one who cherishes it. :P One of these days I'm going to get it here myself just to get rid of disc that is taking up space better used by Morrowind or KOTOR.

Between the speed, sharp graphics, humor, and 2D/3D level design (being able to run around inside a silo while still being a classic platformer) I really consider it a standout of the genre. Oh, rescuing strippers taped to bombs is also good fun.

It seems like we're biting the troll bait easily. Shame to us all.

Listen, video game is not about how easy or hard the game was made. It's about the final product. Developers can spend millions and millions and they ended up releasing unpolished turd like Homefront. But we also found people who made To The Moon and Gunpoint where the engine cost less than 100 dollars or even free but ended up with a fun game people willing to purchase.

Are we really that shallow? are we really dismiss a game just because how cheap or easy to make? Remember back then the teams that pioneers of video games usually less than 10 people.

What kind of Manhattan project were you playing? I don't recall that being in any of the civ games I was playing!

Am I to assume you are joking? :P
I was referring to Duke.

Of course I was joking, I've only played Duke 1 & 2.

I figured, my brain is off at the moment because of install frustration. :P
I'm actually about to make a small thread about it thanking GOG in my eventual resolution so all is good but I'm still seeing double from rom crap and countless game keys.

I'm not a big fan a platformers either but I decided to give them a chance in the 5 games for $5 promo as it seems the mechanic changed quite a lot since Mario. I've only installed vvvvv so far and I must say that I'm enjoying it even though it can be frustrating at time. And it made me think that there were platformers I enjoyed on my C-64: Lode Runner and Impossible Mission come to mind.

When there are sales here the price can get so low that it is worth it to re-try a genre that you might not like.

I really don't see the problem. What's so bad about having more genres present? Just because a genre has not been big in the past on any given system should not make it discouraged to release games from that genre on that system now.
Also, as other's have pointed out, platformers used to be big on PC during the late 80's & early 90's. Companies like Apogee & Epic were quite well known for their quality PC platformers back in the days.

Also, how many here get all nostalgic about seeing this thing?