Heh, as someone born in 1989, I'm feeling a wee bit old here.
Anyway, I'm not going to say that "gaming was so much better back in the day," as I had more time back then, played games more than I do now, and there's always the nostalgia factor. But hey, for fun, I'll stir the pot a little, so random thoughts:
-Doom was perhaps the first FPS I played (as in, I would have been very young at the time, and it was on a friend's computer at that). I didn't like it much. Goldeneye was the first FPS I truly played, though I don't think it's aged well mechanically. That, and while I'm what many would call a dirty console peasant, an FPS is always going to control much better on a computer.
-"FPS stealth game" is kind of a contradiction in terms IMO. Yeah, FPS games can have stealth in them (e.g. Goldeneye, Perfect Dark, ODST), or more tactical approaches (e.g. Marathon), but I don't think it's a genre that's well suited for stealth, mainly due to the first person perspective (haven't played Thief, but while that's first person, it's not an FPS).
-Under the assumption that "kids these days" aren't interested in Mario (which I find hard to believe - Mario's clearly intended for a younger audience), I have to ask why CoD is the logical step-on point. I mean, taking the average kid who walks into a games store, is CoD really the thing that's going to pop out at them? I mean, I haven't played CoD since the WWII era (last one I played was United Offensive), but from a visual standpoint, I have no idea why kids would gravitate towards it. Or maybe it's advertising.
-I don't mind the prequel trilogy actually. Somehow Star Wars became a "thing" (granted, it was a "thing" long before I saw it in cinemas in the 1990s), but after all's said and done, I can't call the prequel trilogy bad. Perhaps not great, but there are far worse films out there. And it's rediculous IMO that it's still a "thing" to call it out for its supposed awfulness.
-I think stuff like matchmaking is a net positive for games, as well as random factors (which is why I loved SSB so much for instance, the battle could turn against you or for you all depending on the drop of an item). I get it, some people want to play ultra-competitively, but it's not my thing. I enjoyed SC2 multiplayer much more than SC1 for instance because while I was stuck being a lowly bronze, I could be safe in the knowledge that my opponent was of equal level (in theory). So not only were the chances minimized that I'd be curb-stomped, but also minimized that I'd be the one curb-stomping him in turn.
Bascially, I prefer equalization and randomness. It's no fun dominating your foes, or having them dominating you. Well, for me personally. I think there are certain games that I did definately get better at over time, but no matter how good, I'd still prefer to go against someone of equal skill than have a disparity, whether it's in my favor or not.
-Favorite stealth game of all time would be Metal Gear Solid, though I acknowledge Snake Eater has better stealth gameplay.
-I've kind of fallen out of love with platformers. Certainly I had a good run with them - the Sonic games, Super Mario 64, the first two Banjo games...and the odd stinker like Earthworm Jim 3D. Still, I've grown more invested in story over time, and while platformers have followed suit in some cases, it's not up to the standard of other genres like the RPG and adventure. Last platformer I played to completion was the first 'Legend of Spyro' game. Decent, but nothing that stuck out in my mind. I don't doubt that mechanically sound platformers still exist, but...well, let's just say that Mario rescuing Peach was old by Super Mario 64. Far as I can tell, that 'plot' hasn't changed.
And yes, Conker's Bad Fur Day was a gem. That said though, I consider Banjo Kazooie and SM64 to be superior. Conker's Bad Fur Day had its moments, but there was a lot of frustration too (e.g. carrying the cheese around...ugh).
-Never owned the Tony Hawk games, but played them at a friend's house back in the day. Good times.
-Pokemon may rock, but never made it past Gen. 2. Yes, Gen 2 was superior in terms of mechanics, diversity, length, etc., but I played Gen. 1 far more. It's a clear case of nostalgia factor.
-FPS...well, there's a lot of stuff nowadays that I don't mind. I don't mind iron sights, provided that not using them is viable. Had a blast playing Killzone 2 this year, and while that had plenty of iron sights use, sometimes it was better to just run and gun (especially the fight with Radec at the end, that was a blast). Regenerating health...eh, I'm indifferent to. There's certainly examples of where I feel it would have been to the game's detriment to have included it (e.g. Half-Life 2, especially the fights with the walkers towards the end of the game), but I never found a game that did have it inherantly less fun for featuring it (KZ2, the Halo games). As for weapon variety, I've never found that lacking - in Halo, the Covenant and UNSC weapons have clear advantages and disadvantages in comparison to each other (part of the reason I don't like H4 much is that Promethean weapons are clearly superior to both, so it became a case of "get the Promethean gun and stick with it"). KZ2, not as much variety, but the ISA and helghast weapons still function differently. Of course, the ability to carry multiple weapons at the same time works well too (Half-Life 2, Marathon, heck, Colonial Marines), but I don't consider one system to be inherently better than the other. One system has you rationing firepower to suit the situation. Another has you choosing between firepower, hoping that it's the right choice for the situation, and any future ones. I've had fun in both.
-I know that CoD and Battlefield have become the poster boys of Spunkgargleweewee but as someone who hasn't played those games in ages (Bad Company was the last one I played in both series) I can't comment. I prefer the sci-fi and fantasy genres as a fictional medium regardless of how that medium is presented, so modern warfare games fall into the same category as GTA at the end of the day. Contempory settings aren't really my thing. The story aspects offput me more than the gameplay for example - e.g. I liked Bad Company because of its sense of humor - no reason is given for why the US and Russia are at war, which IMO, adds to the hilarity of it all. In contrast, looking at Ghosts, I understand that South America chose to invade the US because...it's evil? I dunno, but when space Nazis and religious aliens give more plausible reasons for the conflicts they're in, something's gone wrong with the worldbuilding.
-I don't have much desire to create my own story in a game. As far as story creation goes, I write as a hobby, so that's my outlet. And while I enjoy some freedom in a game, including control over a character, I prefer a story to be presented (e.g. Mass Effect, or Final Fantasy X to cite a recent example) than the method of "here's the world, have fun" (e.g. Bethesda games or many other WRPGs). I can understand why people might like that, but it's not for me. At the end of the day, I'd much rather control a character rather than be a character, or if I'm indeed being a character, I'd rather that character still have a core personality (e.g. Commander Shepard, Robin from 'Awakening', etc.) that becomes manifest outside what the player dictates.
Anyway, just thoughts in regards to the above comments. I await the angry replies.
