O sorry 3 gens :/ of which you can remember 2 maybe one reading the OP

Yes, I've seen those movies. They're great, we all know this. That's why they're classics. That doesn't make them better than what we've got today. Don't know if you've noticed, the guy who made Pulp Fiction....he's still around making better movies all the time. I'm sorry if you're too preoccupied by all the shitty, generic blockbusters Hollywood puts out to notice that there's plenty of excellent movies coming out all the time. Use google if you need help to find them, I'm sure you can be helped. Doesn't mean you can't look fondly upon those older ones. I do. They've still all been outclassed many times over.

I dont watch block busters, I dont like superhero movies, I dont like spectacle movies. I watch a lot of movies from the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s and even today, but not whats popular, just real classic quality films. I have 1,600+ movies rated on imdb. I'm fairly certain I've seen a whole lot more than you have. Quentin has not made a movie nearly as good as pulp fiction since then. You can look at imdb ratings as see nothing that he has done has even approached Pulp fiction since then. You can filter to see only the opinions of top 1000 voters, people that have seen thousands of movies, and you'll get the same result. 

It's obvious that you base your opinions on spectacle. Because film is a medium based on script and acting. There is absolutely no reason movies today would be any better except for technical advancements. You yourself were the one to bring up technical advancement as to why todays media is better than the past - so in other words you base your opinion off spectacle. I'm guessing new books are better than old ones too right? I mean books today have nicer, shinier covers. That's technical advancement right there. Shakespeare, who is that?

This.

Don't know if you realize this, but most people don't go online to rate everything they watch. Now, I don't know exactly how many movies I've seen in my life, but I grew up with a father who bought literally every movie that touched shelves for the better part of a decade, so by the time I was 12 or so we had well over a thousand different movies around the house. I watched a great many of them, and a great many since. Plenty in any case, and I've never felt bothered to go rate any of them.

The book comparison is ridiculous, which you well know. It's equally ridiculous to suggest that technical advancements, and spectacle aren't hugely important for movies. It's a visual medium. The experience of seeing a movie today is NOTHING like seeing a movie decades ago, and that's a damn good thing. Fortunately for us, most of the classics have been remastered as best as possible. 

People get too caught up in the nostalgia of experiences they have in their formative years. The quality of things is generally always improving, but because we've sort of "seen it all" in terms of the types of stories and such, many people will get hung up on the certain inevitable derivativeness of the things that come after to appreciate it.

It's just how we are. That's why every single generation is always on about "back in my day!" Everything is always better "back in my day."

It's certainly great time for gaming atm, yet it's still going to get a lot better when VR and procedural AI systems mature. We're still a long way away from having an intelligent DM to adjust the game to the best personal experience.

I'm not bothered by nostalgia, 1998 was one of the best years for gaming, but I wouldn't want to go back. Things work better now, play better, look better, less hassle, more game time.

I never commented on the topic, perhaps I should.

I think one thing we can agree on is the level of value that can be pulled from games today.  While most single player campaigns last 6-8 hours, games that have serious cut to them can give near endless hours of replayability.  Games from the Souls series, The Witcher 3, Breath of the Wild, Fallout/Elder Scrolls and GTA to name a few have ridiculous levels of depth.  Many of the classics from what others believe to be the golden era offer some reaplayability but most of it is artificial - where games were designed for tedium and looping to give the illusion of length and depth. 

Giving any era a "golden" is a bit hard for me though.  Every era has a equal amount of good and bad - sure games now are more often of excellent quality and offer a true "experince" that older games cannot match.  However there is far less variety - the industry jumps from fad to fad based on what 1 or 2 incredibly successful games accomplish, leaving many genres dead on a heap.  

I'd say we're in a great place.  The good and bad are equal on their own but this era has a trump card in the way of indie developers.  They circumvent a lot of the narrow minded/tunnel vision of the big budget companies, leaving a surplus in this era's favor.  If not for them, this era wouldn't be any better than others.

No just look at the comic book ages. The "Golden Age" of comics is not the best per se, but the most innovative and legendary properties were released.

90's gave us the birth of GTA, Crash, Chrono Trigger, FFVII, Goldeneye, Pokemon, Quake, Age of Empires, the beginning of online gaming, Link to the Past, Mario kart, Smash bros., Star Fox, Ocarina, 4 player multi, Gameboy and more.

Now we have some fantastic games coming out, but they are built on the foundations of that golden age.

"my day" was GBA/GC/PS2/XBOX. But I still recognize that gaming was at its most innovative in the 90s.