Of course you may you cuddly wuddly adorable little... thing! 

Resident Evil 4, Jak & Daxter 2/3 were better, GTA 3-VC-SA and Ratchet&Clank were as well made as they are today but they were something new in past gen, the new ones are just the same thing repeated with better graph.

Companies are out to make money or they don't survive.  Sequels sell and are generally low-risk and lower cost. That's why they are made. Ironically, those casuals you decry may help change that -- the yearly sports sequels sell worse on the Wii than on other systems. (Maybe casuals aren't so stupid).

The 1980s and 1990s were also a more free-wheeling time. Licenses were non-exclusive (the NFL would let anyone who paid it make a game).  People were less likely to sue over IP issues (as past lawsuits had not been successful). It was also a less technologically advanced time -- no on-line play, no game updates, etc. -- so games had to have local multiplayer and actually work right out of the box.

Mike from Morgantown

Think this is missing a few. Missing a ton if you count PSN and PSP, though.
EDIT: Just noticed Pixel Junk, Flow and Flower up there. Guess you are counting PSN. Still, there's a ton more where those came from.

There are some things I agree with you on. The issue with DLC definitely leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I don't like the trend that is going with it, and when this DLC idea was starting to catch fire I knew it wasn't going to end good. An example of this would be MW2. Now, I'm not calling anyone here out, but still till this day I haven't bought either of the MW2 map packs. The $15 dollar price tag isn't worth it at all, most of the maps on those map packs had the original MW maps in them. Even if they didn't, it still wasn't worth $15 dollars. But, like someone said earlier, the reason why they keep doing this stuff is because mindless sheep keep buying it.

The other issue is the these "pre-order exclusives". I don't remember which game it was I think Assassins Creed 2, where if you didn't pre-order it from GameStop you had a humungous part of the map completely blocked off. 

Now, the issue with multiplayer, I disagree. I think that playing with others just can make any game 10x better. Same example , MW2, I was on the verge of selling or trading in that game, found a site where people share gamertags, and it turned out to be one of the most fun games I've played this generation. It's just the overall social interaction that accentuates the competitive multiplayer gaming.

Now, if games begin to have  monthly fees, that is when I will stop playing videogames.

The cycle is now complete young Skywalker. You are now ready to take your fathers place. The exact element you are bitching about has already existing parallels in the gaming movements. You think you see a Train Wreck? heck PS1 was a Trainwreck was older gamers and the NES was a trainwreck for PC gamers and the mass electronic games are train wreck for table top gamers.

It's simple industries evolve. The transition time of evolution of the industry is disruptive. Those who enjoyed the "peak" of the industry often don't like the transition and the future. As an example your a casual gamer to me. You came in at the height of an old generation of easier games or a set of values that are easier to get into. Where as my gaming era is table top. More time investment and much older. It's also smaller.

Here is what I suggest. Take your post, take my post and save them in MANY different spots. Then in 20 15-20 years review what you wrote here and listen to the future gamers. You will see the same parallel of bitching. However when that times comes you as a gamer will have also matured to appreciate the next transition and what it brings. Though 20 years is a damned long time to care.

Sounds like the OP has a bit of nostalgia-vision going on. Yes, the 90's was a source of excellent games, but let's not forget it had its fair share of crap as well; Superman 64, a lot of early N64/PS1 titles, Shaq Fu, Daikatana, and the Virtual Boy in general were all released during this era.

A couple of months ago I made a thread about DLC, cause I hate the way developers are using it. I think it is outrageous that the same month the game is out you've got already a dlc chapter to download. I think it shouldn't be legal or there should be an organization that protects gaming consumers because it is a disloyal practice.

I celebrate the idea of an expansion, of offering the gamer the opportunity to revisit the game and enjoy some extra content. But in most cases, DLC seems to be an excuse to juice us a little bit more.

ACII was good but it wasnt finished because theres 2 chapters missing out of the game that ubisoft pulled when they were developing it and released them on live/psn a few months later.

But i think your right about games shouldnt be too long, i like games that are around 10-12 hours not games where u loose hundreds of hours doing everything but recently games have just gotten too short: most are around 6 hours long now, and games dont have as much reason to replay either

Well I would prefer the later DLC (with no trophies!!!) rather than the main game being delayed. It had plenty of content in the game, and I would have barely noticed if Ubisoft hadn't told me. Having said that, content is cut from games all the time, and the story did not feel lacking

I feel 8-10 hours is a good length for most, obviously longer with RPGs, 6 hours is excusable if they are top quality games such as the first Uncharted or Gears