I hope that you will eventually realize how condescending you have been during the discussion. You haven't been putting out any argument in favor of modern games either, but have been requiring precise arguments from me. How about you actually contribute to the discussion in a more constructive way than being condescending ?
What's more is that you made it pretty clear that you have played older games, so you know very well how different they are from modern games in terms of design. And if you know that they are different, you know perfectly well that some people will prefer one or the another, and there is not need to justify this in the first place. This is what we call personal preferences.
The fact that you know this very well demonstrates your true intentions, that are only to have a quick shit over some guy on the internet because you felt the situation was appropriate.
So since some people need to have everything they already perfectly know repeated to them, otherwise they will tell you that what you say is complete bullshit, let's go with it.
Here is my gaming setup :
"Oh my God, CRT TVs lolz, elitist hipster piece of shit"
Hopefully this picture demonstrate how easy it can be to have a CRT at home. Both my TVs combined probably take less space that those huge OLED panels.
CRT are better for older consoles, these are simple facts.
You can check this twitter account there are some examples :
https://twitter.com/crtpixels
You can check blurbusters, there is an entire site about motion movement and people working closely with manufacturers to try to deal with this problem that plagues THE ENTIRETY of modern panels :
https://blurbusters.com/
As you can see, I simply have to turn on both TVs and the differences will be obvious to me. Getting a CRT costs around 0$ for information.
"Nostalgia" "It's nostalgia" "You are talking about nostalgia"
This has been your only argument against what I have been saying, which is absolutely ridiculous by the way.
First of all, you don't have to demonstrate that I am wrong. I am stating my personal preferences. What you do with this is accept that others have different opinions from you, not that they are wrong.
Secondly, how can it be nostalgia when it is still part of my daily life, next to modern TVs and consoles ? I have told it was not nostalgia, because as far as I am concerned, these are not only memories but present days as well. I know perfectly what kind of entertainment I can get from older games, consoles and TVs because I have access to them anytime I want, in the best condition possible.
"You did not demonstrate that older games are better"
You know perfectly well the answer of how different they are, as you have stated playing these old games yourself. If you know that they are different, you know that people can enjoy them more than modern games. In reality, you don't need me to say it to you, but I will take the time anyway, maybe that will stop with you condescending attitude afterwards.
Older games were much shorter and much more intense. Time was spent crafting extremely well polished stages that you would blaze through in a few minutes. Content was not padded and you did not have a ton of things to do. The focus was on the player fun and the quality of the experience from beginning to end.
This applies to many genre. RPGs were turn by turn. Nowadays a ton of games are action games, but we lost a lot of things from moving to turn based to real time action. My personal preference is for turn based. See, I am not saying that real time is shit : simply that I don't like it much. I am very happy that a game like Brigandine exists by the way, but it is a low budget game. The time where the most ambitious games are called Shining Force is long gone.
Action games were most of the time Stage based, and it was awesome. You could replay the games, try other routes, it was extremely fun, scoring was often part of the experience. Imagine a game like Jet Set Radio but made AAA today : you would have to pick stuff everywhere and craft your rollers using detritus found in trash can. And of course, you would have to put points in a skill tree, points gathered by doing stupid fetch quests. Like it or not, the majority of the big, ambitious AAA games include all of this stuff, and it is not to my liking. See, again, stating a personal preference.
Where is the variety today ? It exists only in indy games. The expensive games have been reduced to a few genres that take absolutely no risk at all. Back then, ambitious games could be shmups (Radiant Silvergun) or fighting games, a genre that was seriously declined until Street Fighter 4 launched. Beat'em all ? Only as smaller budget games. Turn-based RPGs ? Smaller budget. Arcade games ? Small budget games. Platformers ? Not that many outside of Nintendo.
I am fine playing indy and smaller games, but it is obvious that modern games are molded the same way, more or less, having to provide a set number of hours of gameplay otherwise they will be unfairly turned down. Resident Evil 3 was a breath of fresh air, and I was surprised by how short and well designed the game was from beginning to end. You don't see this so often nowadays. After completing it, I started another run immediately, the game was that fun. Although I don't read reviews anymore, I am certain that the game was negatively impacted by the pretty short lifespan for a single run.
So in the end there isn't anything about nostalgia here. Old games were made differently, provide a different experience and they have my preference overall, even if I do play modern games as well. I think this was pretty obvious and that most older gamers on this forum know this very well, you included.