[Danilka]

The bigger underlying problem is that we associate those games with happy periods of our lives. The once where we could play games, do projects and not worry about anything else.

By playing an old school game, your brain extracts these happy feelings from the memory. However, it's not a sustainable source of "fun" per say. As opposed to the newer games where "fun" is being caused by the game directly.

[andrepd]

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.

[eru]

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

[andrepd]

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.

[malka]

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

[ekianjo]

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).

[teach]

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.

[andrepd]

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

[rhizome]

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

[usrusr]

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

[rhizome]

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