> The 90s to early 2000s was the golden age of everything because of context. The substance is almost irrelevant. It is worth considering that this viewpoint i

> The 90s to early 2000s was the golden age of everything because of context. The substance is almost irrelevant. It is worth considering that this viewpoint is age-dependent. I feel this way instead about the mid-eighties to the early 90s, and I personally believe that games went rapidly downhill just after Quake, until the mid-2000s casual gaming boom. Everything went 3D and the fun was beaten out of every game concept. Speaking from a British position, I think your problem with "entertainment" generally is very specifically the manifold outcomes of the US television network syndication model. US TV companies make too many episodes of everything, because of that model, and that feeds inevitably into a particular story development concept that involves teams of people growing and feeding an addiction. Not so long ago, a British Prime Minister (David Cameron) told Tina Fey that he wanted a more American model in British TV -- more episodes. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-48021899 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-48021899 "Come and convince our showrunners that they can't just make six episodes of things. Like you guys, they should make 200 episodes," she recalled him saying. Fey rejected the request, however, explaining that US writers were, in fact, jealous of the less-is-more British approach. The way this works -- that everything has to have a spinoff, everything has to have a multi-episode story arc, everything has to have a universe -- is also why cinema is screwed, because it is now a feeder for this system. So my suggestion is: watch things that don't have more than ten episodes ever. Watch films that don't have sequels. Reject syndication culture.