I strongly disagree. I have zero interest in today's bloated AAA games. Simple games like Tetris, Mario + romhacks, or Civ II have given me collectively more fun that I would ever have playing some insipid shooter or uninspired pay2win fantasy game. I wouldn't trade them for any of today's games, which I consider severely flawed in many ways.

Sturgeon's law applies. We only play the 10% (or less) of old games that are good. There are good new games, too.

I don't doubt it. I only say that the percentage of good older games is at least equivalent, if not greater, than the percentage of good newer games.

i disagree with you. i think the bad games end up being forgotten.

Nope, they are still getting a lot of exposure on retro websites and even GOG (despite calling themselves Good Old Games there's also some not-so-good games in their catalog).

When they speak of "old" games, I do not think they are thinking of Mario or Tetris, which are a decade newer and orders of magnitude better than some "classic" games.

A 31 year old game I feel qualifies as "old". What is old, then, pong on an oscilloscope? :p

Sure, Moon Lander. Original Sprint. The dragster one. 31 years ago was at about the end of the Golden Age of video games.

The golden age ends roughly 16 years after the birth of the observer.

Ha ha, I get your point, but the GAoVG is a specific era, roughly 1979-1985. :)

Wikipedia has https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_age_of_arcade_video_gam...

Restricting to arcade games is probably justified. I'd say we are in the golden age of video games right now---at least in terms of popularity. And you can still get remakes of all the good old games, or even play the originals.

Well, there was a first golden age, which was followed by nintendo and the street fighter era, and so on. That's fine you want to make up new Golden Ages -- more good attention to video games the better -- but be sure people aren't thinking of the earlymid 80s when you use the term for other purposes.