Nobody went back in time and made the games worse. They are objectively the same quality they always were. What's changed is player tastes and expectations. Different games aim for different goals, and a certain time can have more games that aim for a certain goal than another time. Odyssey games typically had different goals than most modern games. They may have been intended to be shorter experiences. Pong and many of its clones are still good, even if it's only made to be fun for short bursts. This also does not mean all Odyssey games are good. Plenty of them aren't. They were always bad, though. So are the other games you were complaining about. Sometimes a game can have good ideas but still be a bad game, and later games can flesh out the ideas and use them more successfully. That seems to be what you're talking about. On the other hand, some old games are good and then later games improved upon their concepts even further. Great. Those new games might be even better. It doesn't make the older ones worse than they were originally. They're still good.
>Your statement asserts quality as a static constant that remains unchanging, but that's not true. Quality is both subjective and relative.
I agree it's subjective and all up to tastes, and tastes can be quite different both within generations and of course across generations. That's kind of beside the point, though. Your point that it's also relative is more relevant. However, I would say that a better game coming out doesn't make an older one worse, it just means there's an even better one now. The older one, even if not quite as good, is still good and still has value.
Now, things are a little bit different in cases like rereleases and remakes and such. In those cases where it really is the same game with minor differences, it's easier to argue something is "obsolete," but I still don't see how that makes the original bad. Throw in the subjectivity you mentioned, and it gets even more fuzzy. In most ways, Pokemon Yellow is a straight improvement of Red and Blue, but I'm sure you'll still find people saying Red and Blue are better, because it's subjective, and they might like some of the subjective aspects were changed. This goes for the later remakes like FireRed and Let's Go. Obviously one of those has more detractors than the other, but there are still people who think elements that they subjectively like over even the good remake leaves the original as being the best. And I chose this example very deliberately, since some people complain all day about glitches and other issues in Gen 1, but guess what? Everyone still liked those games when they were new, and plenty of people still like them now, because how big an effect each individual change in a sequel and remake has is subjective. Some people might not care about the changes, or might see them as negative. And anyone who doesn't know about the changes in the remakes won't care about them, obviously, regardless of what year it is.
>Battlezone was incredible at the time as 3D video games were virtually non-existent and so was the entire FPS genre. It was based on and being compared to late 70's arcades games like Lunar Lander and Asteroids, not Blood or Quake. But when compared to a game like Wolfenstein 3D, it pales in comparison.
It's a different game. You're acting as if it's a just a downgraded port or something, but it's a completely different game. It is still good, but it's not Wolfenstein, and shouldn't be judged by how much like Wolfenstein it is. No game will be as good at being Wolfenstein as Wolfenstein is, and no game will be as good at being Battlezone as Battlezone is. And no, I'm not being literal, I understand you're comparing them because they're both FPS games, but they still have different goals, they're trying to get you to have fun in different ways. One is meant to be a quicker experience you play in shorter bursts for high scores, one is meant to be a bit more of an adventure with more varying levels but less of a goal of perfection. That's not to say you can't still argue one is better than the other, but one doesn't go back in time and make the other worse at what it set out to do.
All this stuff reeks of underage faggots who complain about old games not having tons of story and handholding or railroading, not realizing that those games, even in the same series, simply weren't intending to do those things. Donkey Kong isn't a big expansive adventure like Super Mario Bros. 3. It wasn't trying to be. Even its jump controls aren't as good, but the game was designed with them in mind, and you can argue Super Mario Bros improved jumping a lot, but nothing will retroactively somehow make Donkey Kong a bad game. Its a good game that arguably had elements from it improved upon in sequels.