"The Golden Age" of gaming, as it's referred to, is the 80's and 90's. Highlights being NES, SNES, PS1. Another way of looking at it, is the 8bit and 16bit era. Those were the days when gaming was really coming into it's own, and most gamers, (age 30+) look back on those days as, "The Golden Age".

I must say, I'm kind of shocked at how many people agree with me (about the fourth and fifth gen).  I thought I'd be in a tiny minority.  But, in fairness, I think it's a highly subjective thing.  It entirely depends on how you personally define "golden age".

As a number of people have said, I'm sure a lot of it comes down to what you played growing up.  No doubt, some of the "magic" fades as games become more commonplace in your life.  But then, that would mean that it should really be your earliest memories of gaming that stand out as the most special.  And yet, despite having very fond memories of all the hours I put away on the Atari 2600, for my money, I still say that console games peaked in the fourth gen.

I guess it's possible that it's pure nostalgia speaking.  I don't discount the possibility.  But regardless of what it is, it's damned powerful.  When you consider that I still have my Mega Drive and still play some of those old games, it really puts it into perspective.  It's hard to imagine many modern games still maintaining my interest 20+ years from now.  On the other hand, I can well imagine that 20 years down the track, someone who is growing up with those games right now, may remember them with the same fondness that I remember those I grew up with.  In that sense, I think it's largely a matter of perspective.

But who decided that that was the golden age? And are those peoples opinions more valid then mine? You can't define one era as being "The golden age" unless being "The golden age" has some specific criteria. And those criteria will also just be someones opinion, while someone else might disagree with them. There is no answer to the question.

I edited out that statement because I felt sorry for being rather dickish, but no I doubt many would consider the 7th gen the golden age. Many who know gaming history know the 80's to mid 90's was the period where gaming was pretty much at the height of fun and just being untouchable. So many games were created during this period and it didnt take three to four years to make a game. Companies like Rare could pop out 4 games within a two year span for Nintendo. The Arcades were thriving. During the 7th generation despite the huge sales, we witnessed the falls of many companies. We came to the conclusion that AAA games would be the downfall of numerous companies. Capcom...one of the headlining companies of the golden age is on their way out unless someone purchases them. Despite what people people about Capcom today, they once had a very strong tradition of delivering high quality products at one time and the golden age was that time. There was no Square Enix during the golden age, it was just Squaresoft.

The votes seem to agree with what I am saying as well and my favorite console of all time wasnt even in the golden age. The PS2 was a generation off.

As I said in an earlier post this is all a question of definition. What decides "the golden age"? Given that we can't (I don't think we can anyway) put any fixed criteria that all agrees on on what defines "the golden age" there is no true answer to this question, if you know what I mean. Sorry about the slight rage, I just got a bit insulted by that bronze age comment.

also @bold- are you suggesting Square Enix is worse than Squaresoft? Blasphemy!

5th for me. So many classics.

Around the 5th and 6th gen the industry hit its mark in popularity and Sony joined and the popularity of the industry exploded. Microsoft didnt really expand the size of the overall marketshare, they kind of just took from Sony but the popularity and value of gaming boom started from the 80-90's. Everywhere you looked in the 90's gaming was accessible. Sure, there weren't cellphone games or indie titles, but what we consider indie today was actually to main or major title of yesteryear. AAA titles are in fact killing off companies faster than building the industry. The golden age was successful for companies because making games was more affordable and profiting was just as profitable if your game found a following.

As for Square....I loved Vagrant story and the final fantasy games of old. Bushido blade was awesome as well. What you're seeing today out of Square Enix is Square/Enix/Eidos. All three of those companies did their own thing in the olden era. Eidos was on the PS1 and making games for PC as well.

Gen 4 was the Golden Age. When people think of classic gaming they may have some thoughts of Gen 3 but I think Gen 4 will stick out more as "classic" Golden Age gaming. It saw the birth of a real PC gaming environment, too.

I think we haven't experienced anything like the slump of comics between the golden and silver ages, though. We kind of hit the golden age and then in general just kept going up with wider audiences, new technology, and diversification and innovation in the medium.

LMAO. PS3 isn't bad, but I can name plenty of consoles that beats PS3 in quality.

NES/Famicon, SNES/Super Famicon, Genesis/MegaDrive, Dreamcast, Gamecube, PS1, & PS2 come to mind.

Gen 3 started the cult following for sure, but in my opinion, how the stage was set in Gen 4 really helped video gaming culture take off. It is due to such fierce competition that some of the best games of all time came from that era.