By the way, to discuss what exactly is "classic", "retro" or "old(school)" I started this thread here:
http://vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=73432

I will say Katamari series will eventually get around to be put into the "classic" category (possibly Mr. Digger to).  GTA will also be discussed in this manner to.

Katamari and Flower say "hello".  Every generation has its own mix of derivative games in them, that end up lacking soul.  It is true that marketing suits get involved and soul can get drained out.

I love how people are accusing us of loving games because of nostalgia but I have 24 virtual console games, all but 5 of those i specifically bought because I didn't get around to playing them back when they came out. I'm enjoying virtual console because i'm discovering old games that i never played before, i have specifically avoided buying games that i owned in the past or have beat through already. I know mario RPG is one of my favorite games ever but i didn't buy it because i've already beaten it.

I was quite active in the NES/SNES days but still there is so many gems i missed, i've been playing Ghouls and Goblins/Ghosts and Super Ghouls, Super Ghouls and Ghosts, Shinobi 3, Comix Zone, Super Turrican, Castlevania 1/2/3/4, mario bros lost levels, Sin and Punishment etc etc.

That game is more retro than you think.  I have it on the NES.  It was first released as a PC game in 1987.

If it is so, then how come Starcraft pwns every RTS that has ever been released after it, especially the newer RTS games (even WC3 was a bit dissapointing compared to Starcraft). I can answer that question myself, it is because Starcraft is a much better game than any other RTS.

If you want to put storylines against storylines, well go ahead pit those newer games against Final Fantasy VI (III in US), Final Fantasy VIII, or Chrono Triger and see what games have the most intriguing storyline (I't ironic that you mention story since good writing does not age even though graphics do)

The older games have more soul than most newer games. I didn't grow up with a 16-bit console, I had an N64. I only played older systems a few times visiting other people, it is pretty recently that I discovered the 16 and 8-bit consoles (which I play more than my current-gen consoles nowadays), and speaking as someone who did not grow up playing the classics and not having any nostalgic bond with the older games, I can confirm that there is something very special about the older games, they do have magic, and they do have more soul than most newer games.

   Maybe it's because the more you go back in time, video games were more acessible, but still deep. In the Sonic the Hedgehog games, you only use one button and the D-pad, but that doesn't make it an easier game, just easier to learn, 2D sonic is still very challenging. Newer games may be complex, but not deeper (Starcraft against Supreme Commander for example), and since they are more complex, it's harder to get into them. As a kid I had a really hard time getting used to all the buttons on the N64 controller, using the 3 button megadrive controller and only using one of the buttons really feels like a relief somehow.

It's funny that you mention a Pac Man game, since Pac man is a more recognized video game character than Mario himself. Pac man is and always will be great, maybe not by recent "gamers game" stardards, but as a GAME it's really fun, and just like Tetris it will be around forever. Can the same be said about Mass Effect?

I think simplicity is something that has been lost in the newer games. Depth remains unchanged, the difference is that now you have to learn how to play games before you start playing. I'm not against games and controllers evolving, otherwise we wouldn't have had masterpieces like Oblivion or GTA, but my point is that old games (i'm talking about the 2D games now) have a certain appeal because they actually have some advantages over the new games. They aren't as time consuming (the old-school RPG's is an exception) and, well they play differently, sometimes for the better sometimes for the worse.

As a final example of some old games being better: Super Mario Bros 3 is much deeper, has more precise controls, is easier to learn how to play, and has more powerups than Super Mario Galaxy. All galaxy has over SMB3 is graphics, wich will age.

That's why I said GOOD games a good game is well planned and has a good concept. It has a broader appeal to the masses, has quality time invested and it just works. ex: Pac man, super mario bros, the almighty tetris, the dragon quest series (at least in japan)..

And what I am saying is that sometimes GAMES get old, but the CONCEPT, if reworked or refined, will end up getting a boost and still be good.  Take Geometry Wars for example.  It is pretty much Robotron meets Asteroids.  It works.  It works now, AS A GAME, because the concept is good, but it has been polished with updated music and high definition graphics.  Same can be said for Super Stardust.  If we were to stick with just Asteroids, I am not sure people would think it be that good today.  Asteroids NOW is on the dull side.  However,  when revamped in Super Stardust, it works better.  Tempest 2000 is another example actually.  The revamping of Tempest in Tempest 2000 makes for it being good.

Again, a good concept, reworked and updated.  Latest Pac Man on XBox Live would count.  I believe the reworking of Galaga isn't as good though.

Very true!  ^^

Because a lot of older games are great and are still worth playing even today.

Because i can..A good is a good game regardless of How old the game is