well some people think forum games should be hidden or removed :P
so the naysayers should just learn tolerating these topics

Oh, are you trying to rob me of my business, sir? I am supposed to be student of philosophy here, how am I supposed to earn my money if everyone starts asking philosophical questions?

Okay this is the 'Older music is better' argument.

And is just as B.S.
Why?

Because we have forgotten all the shit from the old stuff, and only remember the best

We do not remember the thousands of shitty bands from the 50s 60s 70s 80s 90s and 00s. Just the best ones

You want to see how bad old games are? Google Angry Video Game Nerd on You Tube.

We could listen to old music from the charts and radioplay and compare it with more recent efforts to see how true it is.

you cant deny the old radio/mtv top lists had better music than the currently most pushed with all those total lame rappers... gucci gucci twerk twerk
exactly
there will be always good and bad music, what matters is what is pushed by the media

Well I am all for tolerating, but sometimes things go too far.
I'm also all for making a minkey out of the monkey .... or is it the reverse?

And we can often turn the conversation into something else more worthwhile ... so not all bad news. LOL

Not on your life.
Most of us bright ones are students of philosophy, and by its very nature it belongs to no-one and everyone.
One should not be allowed to corrupt philosophy by associating money with it ... just not right ... but I guess I could remain philosophical about that ... money could be more than just the root of all evil ... I need to think more about that.

I challenge that ... and raise you one.

Even the bad stuff from those eras, seems better now in many cases, than much of the current twaddle ... but I see a trend here, so who knows what we will be saying next decade.

P.S. I recently bought that movie here at GOG for a very small sum ... hope it's good ... not watched it yet.

I agree with the OP, the gaming industry in general has degraded / monetised in the same fashion as Hollywood. Nearly all so-called AAA titles are an endless repetition of itself with countless sequels with no end in sight.

There is little original content or screenwriting, and merely update of graphics (if that) on the next Assasin's Creed or Far Cry instalment.

Of course it is more difficult to be original in 2020 vs 1988 or 1999 as many things have been done and re-done by now. However what peeves me off is the desire to just continuing milking the same cow (or flogging the same dead horse - depending on your viewpoint) into oblivion.

The issue of modern games is poor screenwriting and originality. Storytelling has become oversimplified and plain poor - with exception earning massive accolades. Dialogues are mostly reduced to single sentence - I assume we are deemded to impatient or stupid to be able to digest more.

We still have excellent games every now and then - but they are really far and wide in between now.

I think a part of the issue may be consoles. Dialogue options need to be clearly visible when you are sitting 4 metres from your screen. In RPG's like Baldur's Gate you choose what you say and your character says precisely that. In Witcher 3 (though it's a great game) or Fallout 4, something like that is impossible because the dialogue descriptions are very brief. "Discourage her from doing this" can either mean 'kindly talk to her, pointing out that her current course of action is not wise" or "Shove her aside, and shout at her while you are beating her to a pulp".

All of it is so that console gamers do not feel overwhelmed. Personally, i would like to get precise descriptions of what my character is going to say, rather than make a vague guess

Witcher 3 is a reasonable compromise - i did not feel that the conversations were rushed or too short. The rest was provided through lore, books etc. But take a typical modern "RPG" - term used very loosely nowadays - and the dialogues are plain dumb.

Somehow the gaming industry believes that we have an attention span of a 3 year old so any conversation should not go beyond 10 seconds.

The other "novelty" that drives me up the wall is the timer for your conversation options. Not only are they often stupid to begin with, but you are then forced to quickly press one of them as the time runs down...

Speaking seriously, I don't believe evil exists, merely that individuals (and societies) sees things as evil or good.
But if I would say there is a root of all evil, it would be ignorance.

I don't believe in Evil as an entity or force, but I certainly believe some people perform acts of evil, and it is not just down to how individuals or societies see it ... that's a cop out.

There are things out there that are bad no matter how you look at them ... though some like to cover them in a veneer of superficial goodness on occasion. At the end of the day, seeing something bad as acceptable or good, is a mental issue and all about lies to self.

Before I go in further detail why I consider your position to be nihilistic and "cop out" as you called it, let it be clear that I more or less agree with Nietzsche when he said:
"It goes without saying that I do not deny - unless I am a fool - that many actions called immoral ought to be avoided and resisted, or that many called moral ought to be done and encouraged - but I think that the one should be encouraged and the other avoided for other reasons than hitherto..."
Other reason for doing moral actions, in my case being - because I can. Though I admit I can also be a relatively big asshole for the same reason.

Moving on - to call something good or bad is to put value on something, to give it an element which that something (probably) didn't have until an individual constructed it. To believe otherwise is to deny the world as it is, or nihilistic. I am well aware that individuals are capable of bringing intentional and unnecessary harm to other living beings, but that doesn't make it bad, my judgement of them being asshole makes it.

Finally, to call malevolence/being a massive douchebag mental issue I do not believe is correct way to put, since many sociopaths are perfectly capable of functioning in society and achieving very high position in it, not to mention that it is actively encouraged in, say, the times of war.

That doesn't change a thing if you read deeply enough into what I said, and you can quote anybody you like, and I know he has the respect of many, but is just a person with a view, and often a rebel.

Like most involved in psychology, they are way too happy to assign boxes and labels and simplify.

The universe of course doesn't really care about anything, and in it's subjective eye, nothing is good or bad.

We on the other hand are human, and do care, though we do so under the hood of many veneers, some of which assign good or bad due to loosely conceived morals etc. So there will be differences between societies. That still doesn't change what is right and wrong, and we aren't the universe.

Killing people is wrong, and anyone with a shred of empathy knows that. Abusing people is wrong and same deal.

Sure many dress someone up as bad and say they need killing, whole societies even, but they are all based on a bias that creates a veneer, usually based on a variety of things, and often because some are just others. Some do things to appease imaginary Gods or some kind of stupid concept.