What's /co/'s opinion on 90's X-Men? It's

Age of Apocalypse is unironically my favorite X-Men comic.

It's pretty good , I'd say Age of Apocalypse is when things start to go bad and by Onslaught you can just stop

>>92491686
Indeed, the X-men comics dropped in quality around '96, '97

>>92491611
I dropped it a few issues after Claremont left.
Byrne's couple of stories weren't bad but Lobdell killed the franchise for me. Everyone was out of character and he just wasn't a very good writer in general.

>>92491611

For the core books, you can slice the 1990s into five parts:

From 1990 to 1991, you've got the tail end of the Claremont era. If you've read 1970s and 1980s Claremont, and liked that, there's no reason not to read this.

From 1991-1992, Jim Lee and Whilce Portacio were plotter/artist for X-Men and Uncanny X-Men. It's very style over substance, but there's nothing terrible there, and it introduces a number of characters who were important in the 1990s, like Bishop.

From 1992 to 1997, it's Scott Lobdell on Uncanny X-Men, with Fabian Nicieza on X-Men from 1992-1995, followed by Lobdell, and a brief run by Waid. This era is what most people probably think of when they say "1990s X-Men". The books of this era tend to shift between smaller, character-driven stories that are often genuinely good, and a yearly big event crossover, of which Age of Apocalypse is the only one that seems to be widely-loved. It does run out of steam towards the end, notably after Onslaught, so recommendation to at least try this era, and keep going until you're not having fun anymore.

From 1997 to 1998, the Steven Seagle & Joe Kelly era, it starts well, but is overall disappointing, much of it never goes anywhere, there was a lot of conflict between the writers and editors.

Finally, in 1999, and into early 2000, the Alan Davis era. By this point, the editorial were essentially plotting the books themselves and telling the writers what to do. Mostly for completists only, but if you've read everything from the 2000s and 2010s, you've seen worse horrors already.

Lobdell is the best X-writer ever

>>92492659
This is helpful, thanks.

>>92492659
Cool, I'm coming off the Claremont books so I guess I'll start there.

>>92492659
I miss Nicieza's hand in the X-books. X-Cutioner's Song is legitimately one of my favorite crossovers. I don't know if he had much to do with Fatal Attractions in retrospect, but I really enjoyed that as well.

But, I will say that the only truly satisfying X-Men stuff I've read post-AoA is Morrison's New X-Men, and the Messiah Trilogy/Cable v2. I don't know why, but the whole Lone Wolf and Cub through time thing was really great for me.

X-Man was decent.

how are early-mid 90s x-factor & x-force?

>>92495392

From 1990 into 1991, X-Factor is the end of the Louise Simonson era, and then the end of the O5 era of the book. If you like 1980s X-Factor, keep going with this.

Then from 1991 to 1993, Peter David takes over the series, with a new lineup, and it's one of the best-loved 1990s X-books. The Lobdell/DeMatteis issues that followed in 1993 are mostly solid, but the series is all downhill from 1994 onwards.

1990-1992 New Mutants and X-Force all depends on whether you enjoy a Rob Liefeld comic or not, and on how much you like Cable. Nicieza's work on the book from 1992-5 after Rob goes is good, but very 1990s. Then Loeb takes over from 1995-1996 and it isn't good.