Given the choice I'd always take a higher framerate of course, but it all really depends upon the game.

For a competitive FPS, fighting game, or a precesion platformer, at least 60FPS is a must.

For something like Zelda though, it doesn't really matter. I'll take more frames if I can get it but it's not a deal-breaker. 

Of course they don't. Nostalgia isn't something that's logical, so it's to be expected.

I definitely can't agree. Sure, some games from earlier generations play poorly today. But they always played poorly. The passage of time didn't turn a bad game good, or a good game bad.

Personally, I think the height of game design was the fourth, fifth, and sixth generations. So, if anything, I'd argue modern games are inferior when compared to the standards of that period.

P.S. I understand and respect the folks who like modern games more. They have different tastes, informed by different experiences. It's the same for folks who like "classic" games. We're not blinded by nostalgia, you know. We're not walking around in a rose-tinted haze refusing to acknowledge the superiority of all things modern. We just prefer something different.

People tend to get nostalgic for things that are good.

5-10 years from now? PC gamers have been saying that since forever, and have been especially in the last 12 years or so since the release of so called HD consoles. I see most people being very happy about Nioh offering the option to lower graphics to make the game run at 60 instead of 30. Hell, PC gamers have been saying 60 is the the bare minimum to have the game be playable, but not being optimal, and that has been going on for years. But yes, 10 years from now, I imagine most commonplace things in videogames will be looked back with similar criticism (as well as with similar nostalgia by some who grew up on these type of games).

And what standards are those? Give some examples of what you mean? What insane standards would you have to use to say for example that Ghosts and Goblins is better than Dark Souls or Bloodbourne, much less that those two are terrible in comparison to Ghosts and Goblins?

This is simply not true.

That entirely depends on the person. Sometimes just having fun with something when you were a child is good enough. I'm not saying people are wrong to be nostalgia, just that it's not based in reason. The bar and goalposts move each year, so it's to be expected that what was once good isn't good enough anymore.

Now to be fair, most new games are bad by any standard.

Things you're nostalgic for absolutely have the benefit of piggy-backing off of the fondness for the time and place in your life that you experienced them, but I think people are more inclined to be nostalgic over things that have genuine quality over things that do not.

I also think it's a mistake to assume that modern advances and conveniences always set the standard for what is or isn't good.

People still watch the Twilight Zone even though a large majority of people were born after the air date of the final episode. I myself was born  almost 30 years after the show aired. The show is dated in many ways. Some of the themes are less relavent today than they were back then. The show is in black and white. Many episodes don't show confidence in the intellect of the viewer and thus explain many concepts over and over again to make sure that we "get it".

I can still watch it though and clearly see the high quality of something that I can't possibly be nostalgic for.

It's the same with video games IMO. If a lot of people are nostalgic for something there is a pretty good chance there's a good reason for it.

Only because anyone who wants to can make a game now. If you look at the big companies, most games are not bad. Infact obsession over scores, such as if this new game got a 9 or "only" 8, or god forbid a 7, shows that most major games are good. The argument just comes down to if they're "just" good, or are they great, or are they amazing.

I fail to understand how any of the Twilight Zone talk has any relevance to your point about things you are nostalgic about being good. The reason you can see if the show is good or not is because you don't have nostalgia for it. If you did, your view would be biased. Almsot everyone is nostalgic about some terrible songs/games/cartoons/whatever from their childhood and it has very little to do with quality. Hell, it doesn't even have to be childhood.

My parents and other adults were nostalgic about Twilight Zone. I watched it. It was good. Same with Star Wars. I watched it. It was good. In my experience, the things people get nostalgic over are usually pretty good. Occassionaly you'll get a GoldenEye 007 or a Space Jam. Somethign that was 100% a product of the time and isn't worth revisiting outside of for it's historical conext. These are few and far between though. 

I think the bolded has more to do with the transition from childhood to adulthood than it does the quality of the media in question. 

I'm nostalgic for the TV show Duck Tales but I'd never watch it today because it is a children's show and I'm no longer a child. I wouldn't enjoy it other than for a momentary burst of memories. That doesn't mean it's not a quality show though. My niece and nephew eat it up.