Are you kidding me? I have physical copies of Phantasy Star and used to have DW too (ex stole the latter), I still find them fun.

Well, I do agree that people bitch way too much about the state of gaming today & act as though it is on the verge of collapse simply because alot of games nowadays follow a certain mold or that newer games in a classic franchise (Fallout being a perfect example) don't follow the classic formula (which is ironic when you think about it).... however, I am also one of those people who believes that game designers are more focused on making the graphics insanely good than making the gameplay insanely good (& that is not entirely there fault as people bitch if they aren't... which is a shame really). It is true that there were plenty of shitty old games that were basically carbon copies of other games (hell I mention it pretty much I see a thread on how new games suck), that however doesn't excuse the fact that there are so many today either. In the 80s & 90s, technology was rather limited, so it was very hard to create games of certain designs. That is why there were so many side scrollers & what not (I'm not excusing it... I'm just stating a fact). Today, technology is at an all time high. Games are capable of Good looking (not perfect... we are still a LONG ways away from that) 3D models & environments... so you would think that with that modern technology, game designers could do much better than making 5,000 WWII games....

There are two sides to everything.

That is a fair argument and a good point. That is a problem that I just hope will pass over time. And thanks for understanding where I was coming from and not flame me like I know many people on the internet would. I feel as if I should copy and paste my previous comment in just the right video on youtube and read all the inevitable reply's.

A couple points:

First, there's ALWAYS been a heavy emphasis on graphics. King's Quest may not be much to look at now, but that thing was GORGEOUS when it was released, so the fact that it was just a series of illogical puzzles and unreasonable deaths designed to extend the incredibly small amount of gameplay as far as it could go was pretty much overlooked. Space combat games were also known for being amazing showpieces, nevermind that they were just WWII plane combat games without an environment or gravity (which, of course, is why they could afford to look so good... there was precious little going on under the hood for most of them).

Second, the WWII trend has been more or less dead for a few years now. Modern combat is the current thing, with Vietnam seeing a bit of an odd spike thanks to Black Ops and Bad Company 2 Vietnam.

And honestly, I'd argue that we ARE seeing a ton of variety in game design today. Sure, not in big AAA titles, but let's be honest, those were never where you went for innovation. It's just hard to see because we don't have the perspective of the wheat being separated from the chaff yet. 1990's games have had 21 years to be pored over and evaluated, we just haven't had that amount of time to evaluate 2010.

Edit: also, to the person who asked if there were any FPS better than NOLF, I'd argue most of them these days are. That game absolutely has charm to spare, but I returned to it last year and found a lot of the environments repetitive as hell and the gunplay pretty unsatisfying. Were it to be released today with a fresh coat of paint but the same exact gameplay I imagine it'd get raked over the coals. It's a shame really since I adored it when it came out, but it's very much a "you had to be there" type of game.

Steam, XBox Live Arcade, and PSN are the places to go when you want innovative games nowadays. That's not to say there aren't any big-name games that do new stuff anymore, but they are few and far between. The smaller downloadable games are where you're going to find anything unique for the most part now.

And much like ye games of olde, these are developed by small teams on shoestring budgets. If anything, I'd say things are MUCH better these days than they were six or seven years ago, when there weren't any outlets for smaller teams to release their games without dealing with the monumental hassle of retail.
I heavily disagree that graphics drive gaming these days. I mean, some of the biggest games released run on engines developed between 2004-2007 (Source, UE3 and the CoD4 engine). People seem to care far more about multiplayer modes than anything else. A gorgeous game without multiplayer will sell like crap.

Except those aren't the biggest games either these days. Things like XBLA, Facebook and smartphones are becoming multi-billion-dollar industries in their own rights, and somehow I don't think anybody at Popcap or Rovio are worrying about the poly counts of shader technologies in their games.

Yes, but they were also used in the OP as examples of games that don't hold up.

That is what I meant by a sudden stop that we have now. back in the ninties there was a big demand for high graphical titles but I think now big graphical jumps have stopped so less people care about graphics and there is not going to be a big improvement of graphics in quite awhile. like you said multiplayer is definitly the trend here

sorry should have elaborated in my last post.

Quite a few. It's just that those two aren't among them. :p

Honestly not sure. I know at least once a year or every other year i do in fact play FF1 on my old dusty NES. To be completely honest theres not many games now that i can sit and play religiously, like i played some of the older titles i have. Perhaps im just biased, i enjoyed the old days and i do think that there was a golden age in gaming and it ended a long time ago. Im not saying the stuff today is terrible, but in my opinion most never break even with the older games i have. Maybe im just a freak of gaming nature, or just too stuck in my ways.

Some of the early consoles like the NES had a lot of games that were pretty poor by the standards of the day, and simply shockingly bad by today's standards. However, I still consider the NES a good console because it also had quite a few great games, as well (games that are still fun to play twenty years later). A console with dozens of great games is a great console, in my opinion, even if there's also a ton of crap.

By contrast, the N64 had a lot of okay games, and a much lower percentage of truly abysmal releases, but the greats were few and far between. That being the case, I really only remember the N64 as a disappointment.

Haha, oh man i love my N64 and honestly play it more often then i play my PS3 or Original Xbox. Between Goldeneye, Perfect Dark, Mario Kart, Command and Conquer 64, and Conkers Bad Fur Day, never a dull moment for me. N64 is probably my most loved console.

Batman: Arkham Asylum would like to have a word with you

Overall, though, I agree, and I find it a shame because I much prefer a fleshed-out, interesting single player campaign to multiplayer deathmatch regardless of genre.

Im definitely the same way, and actually DA:O and both Mass Effect games would also like to have a word. I will admit now a days it is rare for a single player exclusive to sell well, but thats pretty much all i have in my Ps3 library. Id rather play a great game by myself then have to deal with the asshats and kids online. There are some cool people out there online, but they are few and far between.