![]() ![]() I'd say movies have been consistently quality and that quality hasn't dropped, although I prefer older gangster and Disney films. Like if I hear a one direction or bieber song on the radio, it sounds the same as 50 others I've heard. Doesn't seem like there's any decent rock music anywhere at all these days just all sounds like the same generic crap. ![]() Music sucks these days compared to the classic 60s, 70s, 90s or even early 00s. Everything else has been watered down and is maybe "technically" better but the game design is casualised so muchZ The games better now are sports, shooters (cod4-mw2) and open world RPGs. Especially Final fantasy games, survival horror (RE1-4 & Silent Hill 1-3) metal gear solid 1-3, platformers (crash bandicoot, spyro) tomb raider was better then 1-3. Gaming was definitely better back in the PS1-2 era imo. I find Djokovic's game dull, but there is no true objective way to measure that. That is your opinion, what you consider entertaining, and is not necessarily shared with everyone else. The game now is different to the game as it was back then, but that doesn't make it better or worse. In fifty years, there may be an great clay court player, but whilst he may not be considered the greatest on the surface until he wins nine or more RGs, it would be unwise to think that this hypothetical clay player's level would be only on par or worse than Rafa's was at his peak. He as a player and his achievements are timeless, but his absolute level and skills are not. The reason why many of us put Laver as GOAT is because he was so much greater than the competition of his era. So in that sense, players of the past aren't 'better' than players of today. But as far as absolute comparisons go, ie not adjusting for changes in the game, as great as Laver was, if you brought him to this current era he would get steamrolled by just about anyone. In that case, I am inclined to agree, because the gulf between the top players and the rest of the field is just too large. Your argument that players were better in the past is patently false, unless by that you mean that the competition between the players were stronger back then than they are now. That said, with that Twitter trash talking nincompoop elected, we'll see how things go down. ![]() I won't go into the economy because I can't talk about it whilst being apolitical, so let's just say that the issues we have now didn't exactly just start with Dubya, and it certainly didn't appear out of thin air under Obama either. You also forget that so many modern classics and sequels to old school classics have been released over the last 15 years, and that some of them are so good that they are even considered works of art-Half-Life 2 (2004), The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion (2006), Bioshock (2007), Crysis (2007), Mass Effect (2007), Uncharted (2007), The Witcher (2007), Left 4 Dead (2008), Dragon Age (2009), Fallout: New Vegas (2010), Metro 2033 (2010), Deus Ex: Human Revolution (2011), XCOM (2012), The Last of Us (2013), Doom (2016). But you forget that the only game that was bad enough to crash the industry came out in 1982. Everyone remembers Doom, Quake, Half-Life, and Fallout and pines about how games were all so much better in the 80s and 90s. As an avid gamer, gaming has certainly gotten better overall, so I would have to disagree with you. People look back at the fifties culture fondly but forget about the social issues that we would consider as abhorrent now. The past seems so great because no-one remembers the forgettable bad things of the past. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |