Ever mapped Telengard? http://www.angelfire.com/ny5/telengard/graph.htm

Zelda: Minish Cap, while still a very good game, is not as well paced or balanced as A Link to the Past, nor does it give the same illusion of freedom. So I would say that in this case, it is not nostalgia that makes you think more highly of the older title. A Link to the past is one of the best games of its generation though.
I don't agree with you in regards to Thief 2 being better than 3. Had you said 1, I would have agreed with you though ;) Deus Ex and Deus Ex HR are two very different games, so I guess that comes down to taste. A person on another forum recently played through the two games, and much preferred the first game, while I think that HR is the better game.

And much like Psyringe said, the great games of old are the ones who are remembered and still being played, while the bad or decent titles are forgotten. And some things just comes down to personal preferences, some older gameplay mechanics have been dropped from (most) modern games. If you prefer complex party building, dice rolling and all that good stuff, then you will probably find an older CRPG to be more fun than a modern one.

What I love about A Link to the Past is that even though its linear, it lets you go to almost anywhere on the map from the get go.

So you can just goof off and explore.

More games need to be like that.
A lot of older games were like that.

Its about fun. Its about the world, the experience.

I don't like invisible walls and corridors....
(Unless they are a part of a puzzle in the first case, and part of good level design in the second case)

The industry had changed, the target audience have changed, the philosophy of making games have changed. So apart from technical differences, accesibility differences, the games are just made differently. I'm young so most GOG's i play for the first time, no nostalgia applied, and love them.

I think SOME older games have higher difficulty, are more challenging, require you to immerse yourself more, require effort on the player's part. Of course that has it's drawbacks - if you're just stressed out and want to chill, some old game's are not for you. But if you want to beat the heck out of this computer, prove that your wits and/or speed is better than his, the older games are way to go.

Of course this applies to single player, couse today it's the multiplayer that provides most challenge, but it's a very different kind of gaming, requiring you to know the recent tricks of the trade to be able to participate, so in a way is more time consuming...

Of course one must not underestimate today's game world, as it is very diverse, with the flash games scene, indie games and stuff.

Apart from nostalgia factor, what is true in my case is what i would call "a museum" factor, to see how things evolved, what limitations where there to overcome, how creators pushed boundaries. One does not complain that the cave painting is less realistic than some CGI art today, it's still fascinating to go and see such stuff with your own eyes. That's why I also detest the notion that today's graphics are "objectively" better. Yeah they can cause jawdrops becouse of their realism, they are flashy, but what about art design, style? I actually don't like realism (that's why I always loved WOW cartoonish style over the realistic and boring one of other MMOs). Games are for me a strange abstract creations born from human imagination, not alternative worlds, and I'm just curious to explore them and meet the challenges that await me there.

I agree. I should have said "technically" instead of "objectively". What I wanted to express was that today's graphics are much better on a technical level (more colors, higher resolution) than those of old games. That doesn't automatically mean that they are more enjoyable or artistically better as well. Compare the crisp 2d graphics of HoMM3 to the washed-out 3d presentation of Elemental ...

I personally believe that the "nostalgia" accusation is quite overused. Nostalgia doesn't make someone incapable of judging a game fairly upon replay, unless they are purposefully not examining the game objectively. In fact, I'd argue that the only time nostalgia is actually a problem is when someone is judging based on their memories of a game rather than judging from a new playthrough.

Are older games ALWAYS better? No, I don't think so. But there are certain concepts (and even entire genres) that the old school of videogame design did far better than the new school. I really doubt that there will ever be a game that does "System Shock 2" better than System Shock 2. Why? Not because SS2 was perfect and couldn't be improved on, but because the industry as a whole is not thinking the same way as it was back then. Bioshock was supposedly a "spiritual successor" to System Shock 2. Yet despite sharing many mechanics, ideas, and even plot points, it was nothing like SS2 (at least from what I've played of it). It accomplished almost none of the things that SS2 did so well. The same goes for Resident Evil. Nobody would dare make a game that punishing or inaccessible now. And as a result, nobody would be able to capture exactly the same thing.

When we talk about old games being "better" or new games being "better," we're really talking about what design philosophy we prefer--or which design philosophy we think as more merit. It's nearly impossible to compare newer and older games on the same ground.

It's not even that linear really, you can do the last 7 dungeons in almost any order. I love going straight for the strength glove when I get to the dark world so I can get the more powerful sword right off the bat.

You have to do 1 first, yes, that's why I said last 7 (including end). From there though you can go right to town and get the glove, then do almost anything as far as I know.

Better.
But it's not that simple.
You see, I think it has to do with age and what I like to call "the first time effect".
Most of us here are old gamers (relatively speaking) and we've seen a lot of games throughout our long lives. The first time you boot up a game (I really mean the first time. Remember the first few games you ever played and try to remember what you felt). The impact of that very first experience is far greater than the subsequential ones.

Let me give you an example.

Starcraft 1.
I was blown away the first time I've played. I've played so much that I ate little and sleep even less.

Starcraft 2.
It was even better than the first SC in every aspect. I've beaten it two times. Never touched Bnet.

The point is. I think most of us are tired and have seen it all. It's not that the games have gotten worse (some are, of course) it's we that have aged.

That's my take on this subject. =)

I'm not so sure about that. I started playing video games in the 70s, and I still regularly get blown away by games. The last one that did that was Treasure Adventure Game. :)

It's interesting, though, that I got blown away by such an old-school title, while I'm currently playing through "Tomb Raider: Legend", being thoroughly unimpressed.

It depends on your perspective, I suppose. As others have said, if you like the style of older games or newer games, then for you they are better.

I do strongly agree with the above statement, however. Its use often tends to imply that newer game conventions are clearly and objectively better, so the only way someone could enjoy an older style games is to be somehow "blinded" by past fondness. Such as claim would be, of course, just as unfounded as stating that older games are always superior.

Personally, I tend to be drawn to the older style games, as well as newer ones that share some of the same characteristics, largely because of the lack of difficulty and challenge I find in many newer releases. I like games that aren't afraid to whack you with a newspaper and say "No!" when you do something wrong, and punish you for such failure. I dislike being led around by the nose by giant arrows, sparkly things, or flashing map notes that say "Go right here! Pick that up!". I'd rather be given a good hint, and left to figure out where to go and what to do on my own, which seems to be an uncommon approach these days.

Ultimately though, I think it's impossible to objectively say either newer or older games are better, we can only really say what we prefer and what is better for us.

I think some of it goes both ways. There are certain games that are classics simply because they're awesome, and they'll likely continue to be classics for a very long time. But there are still plenty of good games made today, you just might have to dig a little deeper depending on which design philosophies you enjoy. I, for one, like the idea of games being "accessible," but in practice most games I've seen that are billed as accessible tend to be mind-numbingly easy. I personally like a good challenge, as long as the game isn't dreadfully dull to learn in the first place.

There's definitely some ageless appeal to certain older games, though. My cousin, who's a teenager, plays tons of (cover-based, mostly) FPS games, but when I let him play DOOM for the first time last Thanksgiving, he was immediately and completely hooked.

I was also very impressed by TAG. It has a lot of the characteristics and traits of older fighting-platformer games like Mario, Zelda, and Mega Man, but it's a lot easier to get into. (Though the controls are kinda wonky.) It can get pretty difficult but it's never punishingly difficult like the old games are. Like, I got frustrated several times but never actually had the urge to throw the controller at the screen. Plus it's open and free-roaming but still has plenty of gated areas.

The thing about the rose tinted glasses is thinking that games on the whole were better back then. Which is utter bollocks. That said, it's true to say that many old games have done things which simply have not been successfully replicated since. It's just a question of whether or not you can still tolerate their obvious shortcomings to enjoy their strengths.

Interestingly, I think the exact same thing can be said of newer games as well. :)