deshadow52: Can you elaborate I'm interested.
Roberttitus: 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.
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.