I'm going a strange route.
I'm one of the first people on the front line to defend old school games, methodology...the works.
BUT I concede that many times we percieve games to be much better than they are because of personal attachment to them. That there are games, that on their own merits, that aren't as good as we think and say they are.
But that's not ALL games. Only in the past few days have I tried Shining Force.
I never played it before, so it's not nostaligia and I was a devout SNES player so it's not residual self delusion.
The game, is good. It's a little easy, but the strategic element is quite nice and is something that is absent from many current RPGs.
Again, I admit there is gamer favortism but I won't condem an entire system and it's library for that reason any more than I'd condemn the entire X-Box catalog because of Blood Wake, the entire Cube catalog because of Universal Studios, the entire PS2 catalog because of the endless shit that has been churned out (lots of good PS2 games, but since it has the most games, it will logically have the most BAD games, although percentage wise all systems are probably the same. So chill out Sony Fan Boys

) or even condem the fucking 2600 because of ET.
A game should be measured on it's own merits. Period.
Altered Beast isn't as good as a lot of people say it is (I wasn't a genny person so I can step back and realize this) but I thoroughly enjoy Shining Force and on a gameplay level I'll take that and Shadowrun over BMX XXX and Cel Damage any day of the week and twice on Sunday.