Good thing I never said it did for anyone but me.
All I'm saying is that you should be open to the idea that the time you started playing is not the cause of your preference. The claim of causality does not seem justified.
I mean, you don't even need to justify your preference at all. Folks can validly like things just because. But if you imply a cause, then folks are going to look at that, and question it.
If you think they're comparable I'll go out on a limb and guess that either you haven't actually read the Immortals box or it's been years since you have. Because they're absolutely not comparable.
I don't see why not - those details do not change the fact that the game supported zero to godlike power in the past era. That's what you said mattered. But apparently, a lot else matters.
Whereas in the modern game you're a de facto god if you reach level 16-17 in the standard level progression of 5E.
"De facto god," is not a well-defned state. As if commoners in Basic wouldn't think of PCs as nigh godlike at 20th level? Or 30th?
Then, we get to consider how often anyone actually reaches level 16-17 in the modern game. Last I recall evidence from D&D Beyond and Roll20 stats suggested that characters that high are rare in actual play. And, indeed, the adventure product support for upper levels is not great.
Which suggests that going to level 16 or 17 now is just as optional as it was with the Immortal set. You seem to be faulting one game for an rarely used option, calling it "modern" when other games also had rarely used high-power options in the past.
I don't care if you like 5e or not. I just don't think this justification holds up.