Yes, at my young age, i have played many games over the past 17 years of my life (well, technically 14) and i too remember a sense of nostalgia... first things out of the way, i have already predicted a major question
"How can you remember stuff from when you were 3!" well quite simply, i can actually remember stuff from when i was 1-2. One of my best assets (And quite simply, because i use it poorly, downfalls) Is my memory.

This post explores the question: Do you enjoy todays reliastic gameplay over the older games fun gameplay styles.
I remember the time i first got my hands on pokemon red (First game i ever played :D), i was quite simply amazed and stunned, everything seemed so awesome. Of course, i didn't fully understand what i was doing at the time, but the mechanics of the game pulled me in. by four, i knew all the types of by heart and entire weakness charts.In fact, it was a simple black and white game to most. but for me, there was something special. Do i still like it? no, pokemon lost its appeal to me after the DS games, where they decided to exchange the graphics for something more unoriginal. in fact, unoriginallity is the word of today.

You see, most modern games have chosen to switch out graphic sets, location settings for games and create a "Realistic setting." Please, i Didn't enjoy Oddworld because of its "Unrealistic setting" I enjoyed it because i was given an awesome narrative, with awesome platforming gameplay. The stakes were high, and this game informed you of that. Not only that, but the gameworld had some of the grittiest locations i have seen in a game to date. Sadly, it was an overlooked piece of art.

Most modern games have done away with original settings, in favor of realism and ease of not having to be creative. in a world now overcrowded with realistic games, I now sit and watch, hunting down the most original titles i can find. Whether the originallity is in the game mechanics, setting, art or music i will hunt it down.

As of now my eyes are set upon kingdoms of amalur - A game with many original things, combined into an unoriginal package.

that's not true. i think you're suffering from a severe case of nostalgia.

there's always been 2 kinds of games: those that tried to be realistic, at least in some limited ways, and those that never cared about realism in any way. this has never changed.

Doom was meant to be realistic at the time...

Look up Sturgeon's Law. Time separates the wheat from the chaff, so your perception of bygone days is skewed. Games today are on the whole more creative than they ever were.

Im not saying 90% of games are crap, im saying newer games could try to be a little more inventive. I enjoyed skyrim, Battlefield and other new releases, i really did. But it seems depth of gameplay has suffered terribly because of customer demand and more time needed to work on graphics. I dont need a light telling me where to go, i dont need every object outlined just for the sake of it. these are great games no doubt, and im not saying i could do better.

There's tons of inventiveness everywhere, but if you look for it among AAA titles, you're doing it wrong. They are evolutionary, not revolutionary, pretty much by definition. It's the smaller scale, semi-experimental and indie releases that matter. To use your example, I remember when the first Oddworld game came out, and make no mistake, that was no mainstream.

Hollywood does the very same thing. Blockbusters are rarely creative. That's not their point.

Bing, thats the answer right there, Most games nowadays cater towards the mainstream market, It becomes a harder and harder task to find good titles, i have to look in every scrap of the internet to find some awesome games. steam only helps a little bit these days...

Except they have always done that, you see. Look, the developers may really love what they're doing, but they need to sell the game, too. The definition of mainstream has changed over the years, true, but the general idea of developing for the mainstream has not.

And awesome games? They're everywhere! Seriously, I've been gaming since 1987 and it's never been better.

o.O you must tell me where this secret stash of awesomeness is
(grabs out pen and paper.)

I wasn't into gaming back in its 'golden age.' I find about as many ten to twenty year old games to be awesome as I do brand-new triple A titles.

Indie. Currently it is the indie scene that drives creativity forward, and with the rise of high speed internet, indie has become a far more viable option to big budget.

Here are a few games that you should should try:
AI war: Fleet command
Aquaria
Bastion
Braid
Darwinia
Cave story
Eschalon book 1-2
Limbo
Magicka
The Path
Trauma
Trine
VVVVVV
Blocks that matter
DEFCON
Depths of peril
E.Y.E. Divine cybermancy
Eufloria
Fate of the world
Frozen Synapse
Gratuitous Space battles
Hacker evolution
Lugaru
Minecraft
Osmos
Penumbra
Runespell: Overture
Space pirates and zombies
Space Chem
Uplink
Armageddon empires
Geneforge

While not all of these games were the pinnacle of creativity, they all try some new things. And you don't always need to re-invent the wheel when doing something innovative, sometimes it is enough to change the tires.

Oh, and I've been gaming since the late 80's. I remember how sick and tired we were of 2d platformers back then. They were everywhere, and most did not do anything new and interesting.

Its not really about how awesome they are. new games are awesome. but only indies really push the envelope when it comes to inventiveness.

ALL GAMES ARE ENJOYABLE. yes, even though some have there downsides... it's probably because i've been playing for so long that its kind of worn off on me....
Ah, heard of most of those, they are awesome. Ive got a few, but im eventually gonna complete that list.

I'm one of those people who can play any game no matter how old/new. Newer games have certain appeals, and older ones have another. The main differentiation is, naturally, how good a game fells when playing. Sometimes I prefer the ones that have better game mechanic, like say Civilization V, but that's really just a preference.

I mostly enjoy games independently of their release date. Every decade has its 5% of brilliance, and lots and lots of mediocrity (the reference to Sturgeon's law has already been given). If I take these out of the equation, then I think I'm enjoying modern games more than older ones. If I compare the rich variance of today's indie games to, say, the repetetiveness of games like Wolfenstein 3D, I can't even fathom how I managed to play through the latter several times. It's true, though, that the inventiveness of AAA titles has declined over the years. This is the logical result of the fact that producing such titles has become much more expensive: less risks are being taken. Thankfully indie games have filled that gap. Again I can only repeat what has already been said: It's exactly the same development as in the movie industry, just time-shifted.

Just wanted to say that the thread title sounds like a specialist website I do NOT want to visit!
What has been seen cannot be unseen!