It's a difficult question because the biggest difference between reminiscing about the NES/SNES and reminiscing about the PS3/360 is that games haven't progressed that much since. Take Final Fantasy 7 to Final Fantasy 10 as an example. 1997 to 2001. 4 years apart. Games were evolving a lot faster back then until somewhere at the PS3. You cannot deny that games have changed, even since 2006. But gaming was going for a different kind of demographic back then.
It also doesn't help that outside of mobile phones and android consoles like the retroid pocket. Portable gaming isn't anything like what it is now. Switches and Steam Decks are giant tablets that are downsized consoles in a slab. Sony outright given up and made their portable console a similar thing except only for remote play. And games are not made with them in mind as often. Best comparison is Mortal Kombat 1 on Switch and Tekken 6 on PSP.
Another interesting example I realized while typing this. Emulators. They have stagnated at PS3/360 (not including nintendo consoles). The only reason why there is even any drive to make a PS4 emulator is Bloodborne. Xbox is on it's own.
View attachment 12352View attachment 12351
True, bigger gaps between 1997 and 2001 than between 2001 and now is literally the main argument when PS2 is questionable as retro. It depends on game too, first Onimisha feels more dated than DMC3.
Nice illustration of diminishing returns too! The principle kind of applies to gameplay as well: before 3D, games were much more limited, and early 3D couldn't even figure out camera or controls! But compare, say, Tekken 3, to all later Tekkens. They play the same with a new guest mechanic for juggles that changes every installment. But fighters before it? Slow and janky. Open world games? First Assassin's Creed is still a template. FPS? Call of Duty 4 or Far Cry clones. Slashers? They control like either DMC or Musou, then Akham made a new template.
It's not because gaming peaked at some point, but because popular genre conventions were established, and improvements give diminishing returns not just in polygon count and texture resolution, but in gameplay too... like, remember, dual analog aiming on action games weren't the norm, but once they became one, everything controls the same. It isn't a bad thing, but someone who played a modern game can instantly pick up and play something two generation back, then get to PS1/early PS2 and got freaked out over tank controls.
Specifically, I heard a lot of people that couldn't get into GoldenEye 007 if they didn't grew up with it, but rarely hear something like that about Allied Assault or first Call of Duty, which still weren't modern shooters with limited weapon load, health regen and cover use, but already control very close to modern ones.
For PC, remember that Doom didn't have mouse look originally, and you used arrow keys to move and turn and CTRL to shoot. It also had sprites for enemies and pickups... As soon as games started using full 3D graphics and WASD with mouse for controls, they didn't change as much. Compare Duke 1 (1993) to Duke 3D (1996) to Duke Forever (2011).
BTW, FFX in example still uses pre-rendered backgrounds and static cameras, and went back to turn-based, so it still plays into a retro style, but more for a deliberate nostalgia factor. It isn't a retro game and was developed as the big next-gen leap, so could safely use some old school features without being afraid of feeling dated. Kind of like Doom reboot got rid of reloads because they knew they're deliberately making a modern take on a classic.
