The thing is, while game graphics keep getting more detailed and complex (I won't say better), the gameplay has hardly evolved to meet up. The EA guy who said we're still not playing next-gen games (and got a lot of flak for it) was exactly right. It's not necessarily a bad thing per se, lord knows we need "gamey" games like Super Mario Galaxy, but it is counterproductive to constantly destroy the atmospheres and settings in stunningly designed or realized worlds with desperately drab gameplay design and choices, like the timed flag collecting in Assassin's Creed (a notably schizophrenic experience) or the surreally limited environmental interaction of games like Bioshock or even Half-Life 2 (though Valve's effort is well on the way of touching that elusive next-gen).
If so many publishers and designers are so keen on abolishing old school values and visuals, why insist keeping so many admittedly outdated features and design choices? I would much rather have "gamey" visuals (sprites, healthbars, etc) than the bloom-filled cutscenes followed by the same drab lock-and-key puzzles, only now with an exciting lightning ability instead of a keycard.
At least old games can get away with such silliness much easier. You don't mind the silly inconsistencies and odd choices if the game is presented in a way to make it feel more plausible, even if Noah Antwiler is quick to point them out anyway (much to my amusement).
Not that I mind new games, no. I don't remember when was the last time I'd had as much fun and intrigue with games as I did with Portal, FFXII or say, Penumbra Overture. But it doesn't mean I shouldn't love and adore Super Mario World, Secret of Mana, FFVII, Metal Gear Solid or Radiant Silvergun, much less the likes of Contra 4.
I have a colleague who'd never played Silent Hill 1 before and couldn't play my copy because he felt the graphics were so bad (I can imagine they look even worse on an HDTV, throught his PS3). His loss
Most amazing jew boots