Gam0rdude: But as graphics went up.. content went down... and a good example is the elder scrolls series... as in arena's case, it was huge! then Daggerfall, bigger, but then Morrowind. it was smaller, and there was more graphics, but it was a twilight of graphics and content, the perfect game, with just a few flaws. then, oblivion. oblivion is extremely detailed compared to other elder scrolls.. but it is extremely small in content compared to the others, too.
Are games getting better, or worse?
Taking your Elder Scrolls example, I think refinement over time is a good thing. Daggerfall was undeniably vast in comparison to Morrowind, but the towns were populated by mostly randomly generated people, and the fetch and carry quests in the randomly generated dungeons all began to feel the same after a while. I played that game for a few hundred hours, and honestly did not feel as if I was any closer to completing it as when I started - but the reason I eventually stopped playing it was due to randomly falling through the landscape into the void one too many times.
By contrast, when I played Morrowind, it felt more manageable, with more memorable characters, places and encounters. Oblivion refined the gameplay and setting further, fixing some of the shortcomings of the previous games, while introducing other controversial elements (such as auto-levelling to make it easier for novices to complete the game). Problems aside, I did feel that Oblivion was a more cohesive and well-realised world, that it came more to life for me, and as a result I sank over a thousand hours of my free time into it without regret. Of course, after playing the vanilla version all the way through once, I modded the hell out of it - and that, I think, is the great strength of ES3 and ES4. It was an inspired decision to build modability right into the game, so people could adapt the games to their own vision and style.
That was one of the positive ways that games have evolved - but now, of course, we see more and more games simply trying to cash in on extra content with DLC you must pay for - the 'nickel and diming' syndrome that is a growing cancer at the heart of gaming, driven by nothing more than simple greed.
On the whole, then, I would say that games nowadays are technically more proficient (although at the same time more prone to bugs), and can sometimes exhibit the traits of ongoing refinement over the years in interesting ways, which can lead to a more enjoyable gaming experience. At the same time, though, it is a sad fact that many games have been made too 'accessible' to the point where you hardly need to engage your brain to complete them, and have to suffer constant reminders to press this or that button to carry out a task.
We also have to remember that back in the 'golden age' of games, a single model artist would be churning out several of the monsters and characters themselves, whereas now a single character on screen has probably gone through many 3D artists, all concentrating on different aspects, like a shoe, or a glove, or a weapon. In this kind of culture of 'creation by committee' those sparks of artistic vision and ingenuity are often lost in the background noise, and not carried through to fruition. There is a sense of more and more games becoming generic as a result, because 'generic' shifts units and sells.
It's like taking an elegantly hand-crafted chair, and then turning it over to a committee to make it more 'accessible' and 'cost effective' before it's put on a production line - and its creative value is gradually chipped away and lost until all you have remaining is a functional 'seat'. It does the job - but it just doesn't compare to the original, and leaves you unsatisfied.
