Here's the problem, MoLAos. I can provide evidence for my beliefs and claims, pretty trivially. Do you want me to? That's a bit off topic, in my opinion, but I certainly can.
You can't do so for yours.
So why do you believe video games are worse today? It's clearly not a belief based on the evidence, evidence you indicate you've made no evidence to uncover despite how passionately you appear to hold your opinion.
Then again, the opposed argument I would make is pretty well supported by fairly obvious element, that being "The video game industry does not suck, as they still manage to turn out a number of high quality titles every year (I simply need to produce a list of high quality titles each year to support this, a much lower burden of evidence, admittedly, than the stance you are taking), and they are obviously not in decline because they are releasing more titles and making more money every year."
Before I bother to provide any of that evidence, I would like to make sure if evidence of reliable yearly output of quality titles is enough, in your opinion, to demonstrate that an industry does not suck, and if it's not enough, what criteria would you consider to be valid for determining whether or not an industry sucks?
The evidence my stance requires to be "true" is a good deal less than yours, on account of how I'm making a much less strong claim (not that the industry is better than it was in the 90s, or that it is worse, merely that it still produces quality products and therefore does not suck), but then, that's the benefit of deciding which claims to support after looking at the actual evidence.
Ronin:
It's relevant to what he actually posted, which was a comment about himself, so maybe you should read what I'm responding to before criticizing.
It's not my problem if you want to stand blindly by a viewpoint you can't find sufficient evidence to support.
Okay, so, it appears you don't actually understand what "evidence" means, but that's okay, we can work on this. It needs to be something that relevant, for one - posting the scores for three games in three different years isn't, on account of how there's a large number of games produced every year, and one can undoubtedly find high and low games from any year. It's a pretty blatant example of cherry-picking, and only supports the argument "bad games have been made recently" and "good games have been made in the past". This is something a lot of people feel passionately about, so I'm sure you can find an argument that is at least *relevant*, if not valid.
(Mind you, I thought the original Diablo was utter shite, but I'm willing to accept, for the purpose of argument, that the "quality" of a video game is independent of my personal opinion, and go by the metacritic scores. Is this acceptable as an assumption by other parties, or would you prefer a different one?)