So what I'm gathering from reading this thread is that there's a nostalgic beat where one wishes cards would remain the same, power-wise?
I definitely have experienced something like that. However, in this specific case, and in the problem Shabbaman thinks it's indicative of (and if I understand him correctly, I agree with him entirely), there's more to it than that and nostalgia is not really the issue. Now, I can't pretend that I can always reliably parse out where it's connected to nostalgia or something like that, but I think Shabbaman's Ernham Djinn example is one way to elucidate this.
Remember when Ernham Djinn was a good card? Ernhamgeddon and all that? Ernham Djinn hasn't changed. And it didn't lose any of the synergies it had with other cards. In fact, sets that came later provided more cards that could be used to support it. The most obvious explanation (and the one that I think should be our default assumption if we're going to have one) is that as more and more sets were released, some cards that were of a higher power level than Ernham Djinn were released. And as the quantity of these cards grew, Ernham Djinn became outdated. This, as you say, would be pretty much unavoidable if the game is going to grow.
But consider other cards from the same era that were strong back then. Maybe not the egregiously broken ones like Mishra's Workshop or Necropotence, because they might complicate things (actually, I'm sure that they would). What about things like Zuran Orb, Dark Ritual, Brainstorm, Force of Will, Infernal Contract, Sol Ring, Winter Orb, and such? Every card is different (excepting the ones that aren't), but most of cards that were the best at what they did in the 90's still are. Just so long as they're lands, instants, sorceries, enchantments, or artifacts (with those last two, I suspect it also depends a bit on the specific type of function, but I digress). Creatures from older sets, on the other hand, have become obsolete. A creature that was printed back then that is still good is the exception now, rather than the rule, wherease for most non-creature cards, it's the other way around (if it was good then, it's probably still pretty good).
Now, this by itself is not a bad thing. WotC has certainly determined in the past that they wanted the power-level for some effects to be scaled differently than old cards did (Lightning Bolt being replaced by Shock and such, or even the "shocklands" as successors to the old dual lands). Maybe it's the case that there's been a general trend of treating non-creature things that way and scaling up the power of creatures (or creature-centered cards like creature enchantments and the like). Perhaps this is not only what has been going on, but it's the best thing for the game and we'd all be bored to death if WotC had taken a different approach. I have no idea how to make such an assessment.
I do not think this new "Powercreep Negator" is indicative of the aforementioned trend, though. That trend might exist. And it would be appropriate to call it "powercreep." However, the trend I seem to be observing and that I am not comfortable with, is not
that old. There's more than just a gradual scaling up of the creatures as sets have been printed over the years. There's something more extreme. Ransac's Blightsteel Colossus example just might be the poster child for it. When Darksteel Colossus first came out, I was mainly annoyed with it because of the "indestructable" mechanic (I thought it was a silly idea) but I appreciated that it was very, very powerful. Polar Kraken was an 11/11 for eleven mana, but so hosed by drawbacks that it was only barely playable. This was a creature that raised the bar for big creatures. It even made what had once been good artifact creatures to Tinker out (like Phyrexian Colossus) look silly. This was somewhat balanced by the fact that it had the double-edged "if it would be put into a graveyard ability" like Serra Avatar and the prohibitive mana cost. Darksteel Colossus didn't break the game. But it was very, very powerful and popular as a win condition. I saw it put into play with Tinker, Sneak Attack, Tinker, Show and Tell, Tinker, Oath of Druids, and even hardcast by decks running massive artifact mana production (Metalworker and such). Also Tinker. After Darksteel Colossus was printed and up until Inkwell Leviathan was printed, if you were going to use Tinker to search for a creature, it had better have been Darksteel Colossus. Then after that you ran both and used the one more appropriate for the situation. The card was successful because it was so big (the number of creatures naturally bigger than 11/11 at that time was surely something I could count on one hand), had trample, and was so resilient against removal. Resilient because it had a stupid ability that I hated. But man, it was good.
Blightsteel Colossus, in contrast, has infect. WotC took a card that hit the game like a train, a card that raised the bar for big creatures you cheat into play, gave it infect, and decided that making it cost one more mana would totally balance that out. This isn't some card they printed years later that, oops, just happened to be better than Darksteel Colossus. This is obviously intended to be a better version of Darksteel Colossus. It's not like they tried to be subtle about it. IT'S EXACTLY THE SAME EXCEPT IT HAS INFECT AND IT COSTS ONE MORE MANA. I MEAN, COME ON.
Of course, they want to sell cards. And if they make the new cards more powerful than the old cards, we have an incentive to buy the new cards in order to remain competitive. But this trend can't continue at this rate without becoming completely ridiculous. Whoops, too late. It already did that.
