well I would agree for the most part... At the same time though, you can't just decide that something that's newer is better, because a lot of times it's not.
A good example of this in terms of video games is Asteroids. The classic game is awesome. Great gameplay, a fun concept... But it's a bunch of (sometimes, depending on version) colored blobs floating around the screen getting "shot at" by a little arrow. But then Asteroids was remade (I think by Activision, but correct me if I'm wrong), and the new version has updated graphics, a few new features, and the same great gameplay. It's definately a better game. But it's better not because it's newer, but because it's built on the great game that came before.
Same thing goes with movies. A lot of good movies are good because the directors/producers have learned from the experiences of previous directors/producers. Citizen Kane is probably a great movie (though I confess I've never seen it). But now, we can analyze what makes Citizen Kane so great and put it into new movies and because of the advancement of technology it's better, even though it's based on the same principle. But there are plenty of movies newer than Citizen Kane that suck balls, even if they have great special effects.
also:
I'd sooooo much rather have no voice acting than crappy voice acting.
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.
Lassev: I guess there was something captivating in savagery, because I liked it.