For us old folks, revisiting the old is often more comforting than learning the new.

Unless we go so old that the interface becomes a problem.

I'd say newer games are the path of least resistance, older games require much more attention and learning.

Except that, if you look at really old games, there isn't much that needs to be learned to play the game.

(I am thinking mainly of games that predate Super Mario Bros. here.)

You mean, like Ultima?

I'm thinking along the lines of Space Invaders, Galaga, Mario Bros., Ice Climbers, and Pac-Man. The original Ultima was more complex than most games of its time, but still not nearly as complex as later WRPGs. (Just compare it to Ultima 4; the latter is far more complex.)

Not really. 99% of all games don't interest me, regardless of quality and vintage. Mind, I am getting jaded with media in general. You can only see so much of the same thing before the flame starts to dim a bit.

I keep trying to get into new games, but those damn newskool devs make it so hard, every time I just end up disliking the game and going back to classics. You can't even accuse me of nostalgia because practically all of the old games I play I didn't play when I was young. There's just something about the design of old games which is great, it's something that crosses all genres.

I recently tried Deus Ex Human Revolution and literally couldn't get through more than a few hours, I've read reviews and comments which seemed to imply that it was a game with "old-school design" but really it played like Call of Duty with dialogue, literally it's just another shooter gameplay wise.

Try Wizardry....

I’ve never stopped play old games really. One big plus to them being you can fit loads of them on a modern 2tb hard disk and no need to worry about the spec. My favourite game series being Thief is good for this as wel,l as even though the big developers have ruined and ditched it the fans never did and there are hundreds of fan missions and campaigns (and luckily they are all catalogued on one site with a detail index and a excellent custom search options) out there to play.

I guess you're just an "old folk stereotype". There are plenty of people your age that like learning the new - if you can call playing games that, it's not exactly rocket science.

Already did.

Of course, I will not play that game without save states. (The closest I came to beating the game without save states, I think I did use one, was a glitch playthrough that I wasn't trying to win; the game just helpfully placed my high-level Bishop (thanks to the Identify glitch) right nest to the final boss when I cast MALOR.)

Wizardry isn't *that* complex, anyway, though it does have its quirks (including the trap option of paying at the inn to rest and recover health).

I finished Dark Souls Remastered yesterday. Is this game old or new? I mean, considering that Dark Souls was released in 2011 and Remastered is basically a patched version.

Are PS2-era games considered retro yet even?

So how do you feel? Where do you draw the line, e.g. is a game released in 2017 old or new to you? After all, it was released over a year ago! A whole year!

I can't really define an exact year count for "old games". It is maybe more about the feel of the game(s), ie. do they feel (or look) like from a completely different gaming generation, than new games. At least when talking about AAA games, with indie games it is trickier as some of them pretend to be older than they are, with retro graphics and gameplay.

For that reason, I consider e.g. PS3 era games like Mirror's Edge, Spec Ops: The Line and maybe even Far Cry 2 still relatively new games. Their graphics look "fresh enough" and newer games have generally a similar feeling to them. And yeah, I consider also Dark Souls to be a new game.

PS2 era games (also on PC) I already consider old games.

About movies... it blows my mind sometimes when I realize how old some movie is, which I still consider semi-new. For instance, they showed Phantom Menace (again) on TV yesterday. I was kinda surprised to reallize it was made already in 1999, and I feel like it was "some years ago" when I went to watch in in the cinema! (and was appalled by its lack of quality).

1999! That's the same decade when they made old movies like the first Jurassic Park and Total Recall! Only six freaking years between Jurassic Park and Phantom Menace, how can that be?

EDIT: Then again, probably the reason why 1993 and 1999 feel like completely different eras to me was things that changed in my personal life between those years, like moving on my own, starting dating someone, starting working etc. etc. yadda yadda. Yeah, that's probably it. In a way I was a completely different person in 1999 to what I was just six years before, or at least it felt that way.

I'm currently in some weird situatiion. On the one hand I was impatiently waiting for releases of relatively "recent" games, such as Gladius: Relics of War, Sanctus Reach or Avernum 3: Ruined World... But those games are technically outdated in the release date (jokes about "Warcraft III" appearance in case of Sanctus Reach are not unjustified). Probably only exception was Agents of Mayhem, but that's it.

What is more, in last years I've hunted a lot of retail oldies on ebay (mostly those unavailable on GOG). I feel that I've got a lot of satisfaction with games which were made in second half of 90'/first decade of 2000', or those newer which were made in "style" of those games. And of course I'm actively monitoring releases of next classics of GOG (I admit that I've recently bought some of them immediately on release, e.g. Metal Fatigue and Fallen Haven series).

So while I technically still buy "new" games, I feel that it's rather an extention of my focus on "older" games rather than genuine interest in "modern" games. Needles to say, when my brother last time (in this month) asked about some "recently popular" games, I was confused, since I wasn't sure what were recent "noticeable" releases of AAA games.