I maybe get a lot of hate of this but im always asking myself this question and I want to explain why in my broken english why to find out how other gamers of my generation would think of it.
Myself come from the time that where technolegy was limitid, there was atari wich i couldnt stand back then the noise the graphics or just jealosy cause i couldnt have one. And the nintendo wich was too expansive for me to buy myself but i did played it some friends house. But too make this wall of paper not too long it was growing and in expierence fase, they didnt know how far they could go with that technolegy and off course you have that games evolve because of that time period the 70ts the 80ts 90s.

The problem is and dont know if other people have that as well but i know I have, I used to remember most of the games I have played in my life when I was a kid some play sport games some like rpg games ect one likes some games better then other but because your a kid you expierence games diffrently then an adult. But to skip to today
games have evolved a lot better graphics accessible games,
And I really noticed it because today a lot of old games get undusted and make a remake or or a hd paint on it and lets to be done with it. I dont critizise it I am also a curprit who rather buy something that I know I loved from the past then to try new things but if you are a company that has to make money so they can exsist and pay there employers wich side you prefer something new and get stoned to death or choosse something that makes money,.

I just wrote this to know whats your opiniun, i hope you all understand what I mean with this lump of text.
I hope it doenst get to another gaming crash what happened at the time where nintendo saved the industry just to see it die again.

What is nonstaligia?

Still confused what you're actually asking...

Do you have a problem with HD/remakes? Do you think that's all devs are doing now?

I come from a time when people learned the English language...
I kid of course, but seriously.. what the heck are you asking?

To be honest I don't think I understand what you are trying to say. It sounds like you are concerned that remakes of classics would somehow destroy the market for newer games, but given the gazillions of new games that come out on a daily basis regardless, I'd call that pretty far-fetched.

It's a bit like saying "Will the movie industry be destroyed because of movies like 'Hamlet' or 'Pride and Prejudice'?"

Remaking classics is not a bad thing. In fact it's a sign that the computer gaming industry is aware of its own history, which I'd say is a good thing. There are dangers to the industry, and in fact the over-reliance on reduced-risk multi-million-dollar products within established franchises can be seen as one. But as long as there are also loads of original concepts coming out on a regular basis, I wouldn't be afraid.

If I understand you correctly, I don't think I agree with you. I think there is such a wide range of choice now that it's tough to make a case that nostalgia is destroying the market when you can choose retro-style games (many indie titles), old games made available again (GOG), new games, kickstarted projects, tons of different genres, mixed genres in single games, etc.

If anything's killing the market, I'd say it's a combination of things like a ton of shovelware (but this isn't really new), scaled up DRM, and games being released in what would generously be described as beta states.

Jeah but doesnt that mean we go back in time in stead of going forward with gaming?

I don't see it that way. It's not a zero sum equation. There's innovation and 'forward' progress as well as remakes and retro games.

No, I think bad grammar is the real problem .

wich I waned about

Depends on how you look at it but I don't think so. If you play the same set of 5 games indefinitely then it will stop being fun after a while. So, gaming moves forward by maintaining the fun-factor, be it with completely new ideas or re-imagining of old ideas.
Of course you could define 'moving forward' as the direction in which graphics and technology develops the fastest and then you would have a point, but to me that is warped view that forget what games are about.

I think it just means that we honor the great games from the past, while we still can play great games from today.

I've tried to translate what you have said, I hope I got it right:

i think gaming is like what used to be with music, the classic age, the 50s 60s ect what the previous generations tought was cool and hated by the next generation
Yes but dont forget some of the games in the past were great because they were new and the game company wouldnt know if its gonne be a succes or not. Do comanpanies today take risks to see if something will sell or not?