I guess I'm not one of those people who look back at the past with rose-tinted glasses. It's easy to look back and cherry pick 10 or 20 great stand out titles from back then. And conveniently forget about the mountains of crapware that was out back then, too.
I think modern gaming is pretty darn good. Yeah, there are a lot of me-too titles. But it's fairly easy to find the one or two titles that rise to the top. Not really any different from the old days.
And, if you're looking for innovation, check out flash portals like Kongregate. There's a lot new ideas and new takes on old ideas bouncing around in those. Same with the mobile market.
Plus, we have it WAY BETTER in some ways. Take modern simulators. I loved Papyrus Indianapolis 500 for the Amiga. And I COULD go back and play it any time I wanted... But why? Any modern SimBin title features way more cars, way more tracks, and way better driving physics. (And if I really want realism, First Racing League is out there...) Fighter Duel Pro was awesome. I loved it! But seriously... Go back and play it? Heck no! Give me IL-2 Sturmovik. The bar has been moved sky high compared to those days.
I never understood the EA bashing, either. Yeah, EA sells a lot of incremental update sports games. Is that a problem? I fully agree, NHL 11 is basically NHL 10 with a few bugfixes, puck bounces, and new hitting animations added. Is this a bad thing? Is selling an incremental update to the best NHL game I've ever played something to criticize them for? I could go back and play Wayne Gretzky Hockey on my Amiga... But what does it have that hasn't been completely surpassed?
In short, there's still areas in modern gaming where new ideas shine. And we often have the best versions of old ideas readily available. I don't really see the point in blindly picking a few crappy titles and clucking on about innovation and quality being dead. You may have to look for it a bit... But haven't you always?