Have at it.

Post by **jrod1986** » Tue Jul 14, 2009 4:13 pm

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31896311/ns ... ?GT1=40006

:lol:

Post by **equalsign** » Tue Jul 14, 2009 4:28 pm

Modern games are cheaper than retro ones? Some people are just stupid

. I wish I hadn't given that article the hits.

Post by **Ack** » Tue Jul 14, 2009 4:30 pm

Every time I look in it's general direction, I relearn how much msnbc is a pathetic pile of drivel and lunacy. This does nothing to change my opinion.

Post by **General Chaos** » Tue Jul 14, 2009 4:36 pm

Ack wrote:Every time I look in it's general direction, I relearn how much msnbc is a pathetic pile of drivel and lunacy. This does nothing to change my opinion.

I was about to say, once I saw that it was msnbc I expected some obnoxiously poor journalism, so this isn't at all surprising.

Post by **Ziggy** » Tue Jul 14, 2009 4:56 pm

For example: The cost of a console game in the mid-1980s and early 1990s? Often $50 or more.

What? Maybe if you can find them brand new. Or maybe he means when they were brand new?

It's time you update your library and get with the latest games already which look, sound, and even play better than most of that nostalgic stuff you’re still holding on to. (Check out “Crysis Warhead” – pictured above – to see what I mean.)

This explains a lot.

For those of you that don't wanna read the article (trust me, you don't) the top 5 reasons are:

1) They're cheaper
2) They have better multiplayer features
3) They have better controlls
4) They have better graphics
5) They're more (and I quote) "capitvating"

Busting reason #1 isn't worth my time, we all know. As for reasons 2 through 4, if a game is fun than it's fun. And as for reason number 5...

I dare you to casually walk away from a game of "Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare." It demands your attention.

Oh really? I already have! I couldn't finish COD4 or World at War. They're just so repetitive, this is the same kind of FPS shooter as it's been for years now. Sure, it's got reasons 2 and 4 and it's side, but after the pretty graphics start to loose the drooling effect and you could care less about the multiplayer, what else is there?

Post by **RyaNtheSlayA** » Tue Jul 14, 2009 5:04 pm

MSNBC...

Also this guy sounds more like a hyperactive 13 year old. Poor writing and spelling. Also he complains about having to press more than one button on older games. Newer games make you press more buttons too damnit! Another thing is he talks about better controls? Doesn't he mean controller? Seriously, just because a game is new doesnt mean its easier to play. Kick this persons ass.

Post by **brycester** » Tue Jul 14, 2009 5:12 pm

I wish I could get on the msn news crack train. How do they figure the games are more affordable than ever? If there so "cheap" why doesn't everyone have a rockband bundle or every freaking console. This misinformed asshole obviously doesn't know a damn thing.

Post by **Mod_Man_Extreme** » Tue Jul 14, 2009 5:45 pm

Fuck you, half assed internet journalism.

Post by **kewlrabbit** » Tue Jul 14, 2009 5:52 pm

The only one that was actually true was #4, and that was basically a gimme.

Post by **Ack** » Tue Jul 14, 2009 6:01 pm

kewlrabbit wrote:The only one that was actually true was #4, and that was basically a gimme.

Maybe, but it's not necessarily a justification for why a game is better overall. Sure, a game can be pretty, but if the gameplay sucks, why bother?

Have at it.

Have at it.

Re: Have at it.

Re: Have at it.

Re: Have at it.

Re: Have at it.

Re: Have at it.

Re: Have at it.

Re: Have at it.

Re: Have at it.

Re: Have at it.