A factual presentation of the decline in gaming

[Ultimecia]

Sorry Rai, you started a good argument, but it is flawed in some ways. Sure, Badassbill's also have it's flaws, but on it later.

Usually the reviews e critics of one game are based off on the current available technology. So even on PS1 and N64 era the fog areas were stunning for the time. Being able to cover a large area without screen transitions or loading time was something big by them.
On PS2,Cube and XBox era, they only had the previous generation and the information on the hardware available. The grades and the reviews were adjusted to the new generation. So the scores were kept more or less intact. Same thing on the current generation.
I played some games on PS3 and I must say I wasn't impressed. I was expecting a lot more from it. Many of Silent Hill Homecoming's models and textures looked liked something from a web stock. Metal Gear is beautiful, but I wasn't much more impressed than when I played the previous Metal Gears, it was still.. I don't know, plastic. I'm not even commenting on Resident Evil 5.

So it really don't holds together. Many of the problems seem today are the same, so it really don't justify this difference.

Now on Badassbill

One thing that helped a lot the PS1/N64 generation was the fact the industry was hyped by the time. The SNes/Genesis was very good for all and many professionals left their big companies to try to make money on their own companies, so there were lots of games. Many were awful, many were good. I'm guessing that some of the PS2/Cube/XBox got some collateral effect from that, but now making a game on the current consoles is just too expensive, so less titles are produced. It's also harder to produce to the hardware due to the coding (or so they say) so they don't quite got the hang of everything they got. Yet.
The games are also more expensive to buy, so people are buying even less games. This really don't stimulates the producers. In earlier years, it was easier to produce low-costing games to cover for the high-profile games. So for every technical masterpiece here were at least five or more low-budget games. Now it's a bit harder to do it. Not to mention each platform's "campaign"

At first PS3 were trying to sell their superior hardware, but it was too expensive and it took a while to break-even. It's the hardest to program, and even with better hardware the reviews says that the 360 versions of most games actually looks better.
The first XBox was mostly a FPS platform, so 360's initial titles were more of this genre.And it don't attracts to all gamers. Now it's getting more variety and it's selling a lot more, but the red ring of death thing scared many gamers away. Oh! Almost forgot that many of the 360 games might ended up being ported to the computer.
And Wii decided to go with the same strategy like PS1 over N64: inferior hardware, but cheaper games. And decided to invest on casual gamers. More games, but way more crappy games and not even 1/3 of the games gets reviewed.

Those are some of my thoughts. And if you ask me, yeah, I got a Wii and I'm planning to buy a 360. But so far I'm having way more fun on DS and PSP than big home consoles.