newman: It is a silly comparison, I agree. That works both ways. One can't say MW3/Halo 4/whatever are better than Doom any more than one can say they're worse, which this video essentially does. Doom was definitely a landmark game, and it was a good game at the time, but modern shooters, even ones like MW3, offer more complex gameplay than Doom does. Which is natural, since they take advantage of technologies that didn't exist then. I don't contest that Doom is a more important game, but it's certainly not better. Our expectations have just gone up.
Interesting question: how far apart do two games need to be for a comparison to be meaningless? Crysis 2 and Half-Life 2 are ~7 years apart, and I don't think anyone finds a comparison of those two silly (except for graphics). Hell, Ep.2 (which doesn't change HL2's gameplay significantly) and Crysis 2 are only 4 years apart.
Half-Life 1 and Doom are ~5 years apart. Halo 1 and Doom are 8 years apart. Are either of those silly comparisons?
Luis Dias: That isn't where modern games are going, it's where the modern combat FPS have already gone. Most of the gameplay conventions that video makes fun of (apart from regenerating health) aren't present in Crysis, for instance. Not many are in Halo 4 either. The description says it's a comment on the games industry, but it isn't. It's a comment on the ever popular CoD franchise. That video isn't "if Doom was made today", it's "if Doom was made by Infinity Ward or Dice".
Apart from the things that don't really age (like story), I'd say game are only getting better. We just need a new console generation so big developers have new technology to take advantage of.