Classic vs Modern, which is better in media (Movies, Music, Video games)?

[Ray Trace]

I'll have to say that games in the older days were better. People didn't got as much rushed garbage as they do now. Modern games these days defy Shigeru Miyamoto's statement of "A delayed game is eventually good, but a rushed game is forever bad".

*pic*

You mean back when the consumer had basically no way of knowing what game was good and what was bad

This hamburger creation thing from the "modern era" reminds me of restaurants like Fuddrucker's or any place where you can build your own burger.

Man were those burgers good.

 

[LeftyGreenMario]

yeah, back then you couldn't talk to other people about games

it was a scary time

Let's be honest, without things like GameFAQs and Metacritic and no quality control of video games, you bet on the chance that other people you know have played the game or you play gaming Russian Roulette. I believe movie reviews also existed back then in the form of newspaper, I guess.

 

[Dr. Javelin]

yeah, back then you couldn't talk to other people about games

it was a scary time

Let's be honest, without things like GameFAQs and Metacritic and no quality control of video games, you bet on the chance that other people you know have played the game or you play gaming Russian Roulette.

Not really. I imagine the post is talking about early-mid 2000s gaming, where this was often the case (or at least with games I played). Especially in the RTS category, expansion packs were incredibly common, but the original game didn't feel like it was missing anything.

For example: Warcraft III, Supreme Commander, and Age of Empires 2, were all great games in their own right. Then they got even better with expansion packs (which were basically just sequels that would fix all the issues of the previous game). Which was much more enjoyable than the practice of, say, cutting up Starcraft II's campaign into THREE PIECES SO I HAVE TO BUY DIFFERENT PARTS FOR THE CAMPAIGN FOR EACH RACE. THANKS, BLIZZARD. NOW I'LL HAVE TO PAY EXTRA MONEY TO PLAY THE CAMPAIGN AS THE SPACE WOLVERINE JEDIS.

Ahem.

But hey, one thing that's generally better about the modern method of releasing content is that they can patch bugs and glitches and do balance updates post-release.

 

[Brock]

modern mmos are inherently better than classic mmos. check and mate.

also there are still enough polished games with bonus dlc content that enhances the game rather than patches the game. people overhype a few bad games which use patches and dlc to finish an incomplete game, when its actually a small sample of super high or super low profile launches that do this.

the majority of good games are still good on release. they can just be improved upon later with an internet connection, via dlc and expansion.

 

[Zae]

theres also the issue with larger games like open world games that release early and focus any problem they could have fixed with a later patch, which just screams lazy as well.

Although older games arent excused from shit quality as the same goes for new games, although going with brock on this one, old mmos are ungodly bad compared to modern ones.

 

[LeftyGreenMario]

Not really. I imagine the post is talking about early-mid 2000s gaming, where this was often the case (or at least with games I played). Especially in the RTS category, expansion packs were incredibly common, but the original game didn't feel like it was missing anything.

For example: Warcraft III, Supreme Commander, and Age of Empires 2, were all great games in their own right. Then they got even better with expansion packs (which were basically just sequels that would fix all the issues of the previous game). Which was much more enjoyable than the practice of, say, cutting up Starcraft II's campaign into THREE PIECES SO I HAVE TO BUY DIFFERENT PARTS FOR THE CAMPAIGN FOR EACH RACE. THANKS, BLIZZARD. NOW I'LL HAVE TO PAY EXTRA MONEY TO PLAY THE CAMPAIGN AS THE SPACE WOLVERINE JEDIS.

Ahem.

But hey, one thing that's generally better about the modern method of releasing content is that they can patch bugs and glitches and do balance updates post-release.

I don't disagree, though I was thinking about even earlier, like in the 80's. And I also agree with you on the expansion packs as well and they're usually the quality standard people expect from expansion packs in the first place. And yeah, lol, I don't think it's very hot to split up Starcraft into three rather than releasing the game with all important units and have expansion packs add more units for all three races rather than adding more units per race and it's Terran -> Zerg -> Protoss, and that's over the course of a few years. But I'm not too knowledgeable on Starcraft II (compared to the first Starcraft but I'm not a Starcraft expert either, I just am more familiar with it) so correct me if I'm wrong.