In some cases, yes, I think we tend to look at things with rose-tinted glasses. There are certain elements of the older RPGs - and games in general - that needed to be improved or changed in order to make them a better experience. However, in the case of the picture you posted, I think that it's not one of those "rose-tinted" cases, but rather a sign of regression rather than progression. Sure, Planescape: Torment might have gone overboard with the amount of dialogue options and felt too much like an interactive novel, but it had a wonderful amount of depth and character, and that is what made it a very memorable experience. The complex dialogue of yesteryear that had very real consequences has been replaced with a mere illusion of choice, which is hardly a refinement of dialogue-heavy, story-driven RPGs.
I think that I personally sit in an even more difficult position than other old-school RPGers in that I am not against new ideas, and I also recognize that there are elements of older RPGs that are very rough around the edges and need improvement. Unfortunately, a lot of the so-called "improvements and innovations" aren't anywhere near what I would call the "right" direction. So I am not stuck in a mindset that is against any and all changes, yet still find myself frustrated with the direction of modern releases; I want improvements and new ideas, but not at the cost of the depth and complexity of the classics. I essentially want new RPGs to take the brilliant ideas and concepts from the classics and find a way to make them better and ultimately more enjoyable, not "dumb them down" for an audience that isn't even aware of the precursors of the genre.
Anyone else feel the same?
