Something that bothers me when people compare newer games to older games is when they talk "better" or "worse", but what they are really talking about is the impact of the older game at the time of its release. I'll give you an example, albeit an example based on my opinion.
Every time a new James Bond game comes out it is inevitably compared to Goldeneye. Goldeneye was amazing at the time and had a huge impact on console FPS. It's still pretty fun today, but it is VERY dated. Along came the most recent James Bond game (Quantum of Solace) and everybody immediately said that Goldeneye was better. What (I think) they meant was that the impact and freshness of Goldeneye at the time of its release was better than the impact and freshness of QoS. It's easy to see that Quantum of Solace has the advantage of over a decade of graphical and sound advances as well as gameplay additions such as online multiplayer and a cover system. QoS is a better game...now, by today's standards. Goldeneye was a much more influential game than the far from unique QoS could ever hope to be. I loved Goldeneye and still love it, but to say that it is "better" than QoS isn't exactly accurate IMO when you really think about it.
I've always found it difficult to fairly compare games from different console generations. You can really only judge them by the standards of their time.
Keep this in mind when reading what I type...
I've been gaming longer than many of you have been alive.