If I have to disagree with something it's with Bioshock. I believe all 3 games are a masterpiece.
They keep telling me that System Shock is better. I didn't play it. But I don't have a problem with it. It's like when some people argue that the first SMB was the best Mario, while other people say it's SMB 3, but I TOTALLY think that Super Mario World was better than all SMB NES games, for obvious reasons. And that SM64 must be better than SMW and Sunshine than SM64. And I'm completely sure the best Mario games ever are the Galaxy games, also for obvious reasons. I mean, Levine was responsible for System Shock, maybe it is a masterwork like they say, but when technology allowed him to do it better, he did it. It's the same for Nintendo, Mario games were getting better and better as technology was increasing.
Don't get me wrong: technology doesn't make excellent games by itself. You need the genius of Levine, of Nintendo, or whatever genius you want to put.
This applies, the way I see it, to 3D games, but not so much to 2D games. I can equally enjoy a good NES game and a good new 2D PC game with modern looks.
And about 3D (and this is very personal) I just find anything previous to Playstation 2 to look VERY OLD. I just can't play it, I can't stand that old 3D. It's like AVGN once said, kind of "it's like it was a limbo for 3D games, when graphics weren't still good".
It's just the way my tastes are. There are some obvious exceptions, like N64 CV games, or Zelda games...
But most of times, I can play and enjoy 100% a NES, SNES, Genesis game, but just not a PSX 3D game. Not to mention System Shock, which is from 1.994. I'd really like to play it, because it is from the same guy who made Bioshock, but I don't know if someday I'll be able to...