Lurker > adjl

Yellow posted...

Are the laws of physics are ultimately subjective depending on your interpretation of the illusion of consciousness?

The phenomena themselves are objective. Their descriptions and what practical implications and applications they have for us, less so.

Yellow posted...

If genocide isn't objectively bad, then there is nothing in the universe that is objectively anything at all, and the entire English language and language in general is useless because I can't call a rock a rock anymore. BTW don't call it a rock, from a giant's perspective it might be a pebble.

This is why people will generally agree that absolute subjectivity is a completely useless perspective, even if it is logically sound. There comes a point where a subjective assessment is so universal that it can effectively be treated as objective without running into issues. Depending on the subject, that line may vary and be up for debate, so you should be prepared to have any such assumptions you make challenged, but you can still make those assumptions without issue more often than not.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Master_Magnus posted...

I am fine missing out on games that I chose not to play at all,

I can guarantee most of the games you've missed out on have been missed not because you chose to skip them, but because you weren't aware of them. Many more have been missed because you said "maybe I'll get that later" and never did (whether because you forgot or simply missed the window where it was available for sale).

Master_Magnus posted...

but I can never live without Bowser's Fury

You have lived without it, and you will continue to live without it.

Master_Magnus posted...

But I cannot buy the game again at $60, because if I let Nintendo take advantage of my addiction I will end up broke like people with a gambling addiction.

You're not going to end up broke over paying $60 for a port every half decade (or if you are, you shouldn't be paying $60 for games in the first place). If you're really concerned about how much it might cost to yield to your compulsion to own every piece of content for game, put together a concrete plan for which ones to buy and when so you can budget appropriately.

In the hypothetical scenario that you've concocted where publishers just rerelease the same games over and over with marginally more content each time, you don't need to buy every single iteration to get all of it. You just need to buy, say, every 5th one, dramatically reducing the cost and ensuring that you get a more worthwhile amount of extra content for the purchase (plus, on that time scale, you'll probably be looking at different systems, which adds a convenience factor). You won't get to play all the content right away, but you'll get it all eventually.

Quite simply, remakes aren't going away, and they're not going to stop adding extra content to be more appealing (note that one of the most common criticisms of Mario 3D All Stars is that they didn't do enough to make the rerelease better than the original: people want improvements from remakes), no matter how much you insist that they should. If you want to stop having a problem with that, that change is going to have to come from you.

Master_Magnus posted...

The time that it takes for a port to happen doesn't matter.

It absolutely does. There's a world of difference between "I shouldn't bother buying this now because a better version will come out next year" and "I shouldn't bother buying this now because there might be a better version in 5-10 years." Waiting a year for a noteworthy upgrade is reasonable, as is being frustrated by a release that obviates a year-old game (especially in a genre where staying on top of current content is so vital to the multiplayer aspect). Waiting half a decade for a minor one is not.

Master_Magnus posted...

I literally cannot stop fixating.

Sure you can. It'll likely take years of therapy and a constant conscious effort to discourage yourself from falling into self-destructive thought processes, because that's the nature of such compulsions, but it's far from impossible.

Master_Magnus posted...

The problem can only be solved if gamers boycott any game dev that pulls a Street Fighter so that I can go back to playing videogames and never worry about missing out any content on any game I buy.

Gamers can't even be convinced to boycott EA. You're certainly not going to convince them to boycott Nintendo over enhancing a 7-year-old game when porting it to a new system (which is very much not "pulling a Street Fighter"), especially considering that you're the only person who has this much of a problem with it. You'll be very hard-pressed to find anyone else who bought SM3DW near its launch and is anything worse than mildly annoyed by this.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Joe_Biden posted...

so...ask for a car with self driving capability.

Presumably, whatever cars are currently available that have self-driving capability won't be up to whatever standards will be implemented by the time manual driving is outlawed, given that that's going to be at least another 40-50 years. If the scenario allows me to ask for stuff that doesn't exist yet, then I might as well take it a step even further and ask for one that can transform into a robot maid and also a robot pop star that will rake in millions for me with no input on my part.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

pionear posted...

Yes...plus any upgrades due to any laws/emissions/regulations, etc.

And if you total/get into a wreck with it, you get an exact replacement.

Easy pick, then. Yes, in a heartbeat. I suspect I'll still be left out in the cold if we ever reach the point of non-autonomous cars being prohibited on public roads, but I honestly doubt that'll happen within my lifetime, and we're at a point now where any other improvements I could get by buying a newer car model are pretty meaningless. Not having to pay anything on the car would vastly outweigh never being able to upgrade it.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Does the offer of free parts/maintenance also ensure that new parts will always be available so the vehicle is never rendered obsolete? If not, this sounds like a great way to be left with a very heavy paperweight and no ability to drive after 20-30 years (possibly even 10-15, depending on the car).

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

ReturnOfFa posted...

this could go on forever

It could, but I'm bored, so that's okay.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Mead posted...

Pasta only really overcooks usually when it absorbs too much water and gets too soft.

Unless you bake or otherwise cook it dry for too long and it dries out/burns, but that's also pretty unlikely if you're just stirring cheese into a pot.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Master_Magnus posted...

They already know who bought a digital copy of the game.

They would if the account system were that robust and that information were carried over between systems. It probably should be, since it's 2021 and all, but there's little point now in upgrading the firmware for a system that's been dead for four years just to enable the handful of people that care about this bonus content to buy it at a reduced price. That would be a sizable amount of work for very little return.

Master_Magnus posted...

If they don't already have serial numbers for game discs, just let people trade in their physical copy to get the port with a discount. Easy.

Coordinating a physical buyback program is very much not easy. Even ignoring the man-hours that would be involved in organizing it, they'd likely end up paying more than the $10 you're hoping for just to ship the two games (retrieving the old copy and sending the new one out), let alone how much of the sale price would go toward the store itself. There's almost no chance that idea would actually make money.

The only way it's at all practical to get this content to people who own the original is to sell it as a standalone purchase. It remains to be seen whether or not it's enough content to be worth doing so.

Master_Magnus posted...

Those tens of thousands of games aren't worth playing.

Really? You really think that you've played every single game ever released that's worth playing? That there's nothing out there that you'd have fun with if you only knew it existed and could get your hands on a copy? Or, for that matter, that you've never missed out on enjoyable content in a game you have played because you didn't push for 100% completion?

That, I can tell you, is very much not true, and you're kidding yourself to think that it is. Your gaming experience is a tiny fraction of the experience that is available. It always will be, because there simply aren't enough hours in the day to play everything that's worth playing (to say nothing of essential things like eating and sleeping and making the money needed to buy those games). You get by just fine missing out on that content, you'll get by just fine missing out on this.

Master_Magnus posted...

They've never been an issue because I wasn't screwed.

You still aren't screwed. Not by any real measure.

Master_Magnus posted...

Now I am and I will not stop fixating on this until it is solved.

The "problem" only exists because you're fixating on it. If you stopped fixating on it, there would be no problem. Your fixation is the problem. Until you stop fixating, the problem will never be solved.

Master_Magnus posted...

Bowser's Fury is definitely going full Street Fighter.

Bowser's Fury is a small amount of bonus content (the full scope of which is yet unknown) added to a single port released on a different system, 7 years after the original game's release. "Full Street Fighter" means releasing multiple ports, each with significant added content, usually on the same system because they've come out 1-2 years apart. The two are not remotely comparable.

Master_Magnus posted...

It doesn't matter that I enjoyed the game if my life is ruined because there are levels that I will never get to play because I already enjoyed the game.

It doesn't matter for your happiness and satisfaction. It does matter for what the word "extra" means. The English language doesn't care about how satisfied you decide to be, and according to English semantics, it's extra content. By definition.

Master_Magnus posted...
It's a problem that those who bought the Wii U got a s*** deal compared to every other Nintendo console.

They got a generation that was cut short by about a year, with a correspondingly smaller library of exclusive titles. That's kind of inevitable when a console fails commercially, but given how badly the WiiU did, that's about the best anyone could expect from it. I bought the console, I got games for it, I had enough fun overall to feel that the purchase was justified. That hardly sounds like a "shit deal" to me.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Xenoblade Chronicles, particularly the first one. 2 has similar music that's comparably good, but falls a little short. X has many tracks that are just as good as the first one's best songs, but its lows are much worse than anything in either other game.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Jen0125 posted...

Winter coats are expensive and if you invest in a good one that is stylistically versatile you can have only one for years

My current one is over 6 years old and still going strong. The one before lasted me a decade (also an all-season one) before finally falling apart to enough of an extent that I could be convinced to buy one that fit properly (since I'd grown a bit since grade 9). Frugality is fun.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

grimhilde00 posted...

From what I've read you don't need to put a lot of salt in for boiling water. Having some in for surface area or something helps (I forget what I read but eh a little won't hurt regardless), but a ton most likely (unless you're crazy) be enough to raise the boiling point.

Salting pasta water is pretty much exclusively for flavour. You aren't going to elevate the boiling point by even a whole degree C without making the water pretty unpleasantly salty.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Solid Sonic posted...

"Suck it up and just obey them begrudgingly," is loser talk.

That's why you rephrase it to "play along and subvert them from the inside," because then you sound cool.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Master_Magnus posted...

It is practical,

How? Developing it for the original game will take the same amount of resources as developing it for the remake (if it's even possible within the technical limitations of the older system). Offering an upgrade option requires the existence of infrastructure by which they can determine whether or not you own a copy of the original (including some manner of verification system to prevent used copies from spawning infinite copies of the remake), which does not exist. Offering either solution would require a substantial investment that likely will not be recovered because, again, most people aren't that interested in minor DLC for games they finished playing years ago.

How exactly do you consider it practical for a business to spend more than they will make solving a problem that isn't actually hurting them?

Master_Magnus posted...

Both choices ruin my life.

They really don't. There are tens of thousands of games you have never and will never play in their entirety, many of which you really can't ever play because reasonably accessible options for them don't exist (ironically, because they *haven't* been ported), and that number is only going to grow as the industry does. Your life has not been ruined by not playing any given one of them, and similarly, your life has not been ruined by not playing this one.

Perspective, my friend: The problems you're having with this game have been there for your entire life, and they've never been this much of an issue for you. It's only because you're choosing to fixate on this one that it's bothering you so much. Convince yourself to fixate less on it, and the problem's gone.

Master_Magnus posted...

So far it didn't help. At least not with videogame problems.

It'll get there. If you don't feel like you're making progress, talk to your therapist about that. Maybe they need to try something different, maybe they'll refer you to a new therapist, or maybe your apparent lack of progress so far is completely within expectations and you are actually getting gradually better.

Master_Magnus posted...

They should care because most gamers are like that.

They really aren't. People that buy remakes of games they already own do so because they feel it will be worthwhile, not because they're compelled to have everything. There are publishers that go full Street Fighter and do everything they can to convince people they should buy a new copy because of everything they're missing out on, but when it comes to remaking games (especially in the case of the WiiU, where games are being remade only because they sold so poorly the first time around), the focus is primarily on attracting new audiences.

Master_Magnus posted...

If Nintendo just wanted to sell the game to a new audience then they wouldn't spend money on extras.

You might think, but most of the people they're trying to sell the game to already know about it and have already made a decision not to buy it the first time around. In this case, that decision was based more around not wanting to buy the system than not wanting to buy the game, but regardless of the reasoning, people that have already decided not to buy a game are likely to stick to that decision if you just offer it to them again without doing anything different. Adding extra content - however trivial - convinces those people to give it a second look, which is often all it takes to get a sale once whatever issue prevented the original sale (system ownership, in this case) has been resolved.

It's also worth noting that many people who chose not to buy the original may have done so because they didn't feel they'd get their money's worth out of it. Adding more content helps to alleviate that, driving more sales.

Master_Magnus posted...

To me Bowser's Fury is necessary. I can't enjoy any game if I can't buy all the DLC I want for that game without buying it twice. All DLC that I care about is necessary, and I should never have to miss out on any DLC forever because the devs charge $60 for it.

You already have enjoyed the game, without the content. By definition, that means the content is not necessary for you to enjoy the game. That you're retroactively sabotaging that enjoyment is entirely your decision, not an inherent property of this content.

Master_Magnus posted...

And the very fact that there are an unusual number of Wii U ports is a problem.

Not really. It means that games that didn't sell very well because of the platform they were on get to have the sales they deserve and more people get to enjoy them. Over 20 million people (and probably pushing 25, in all likelihood) have gotten to play Mario Kart 8 solely because it was ported to the Switch. More people enjoying games is never a problem.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Jen0125 posted...

To say nothing of being generally unnecessary. Heck, I use the same jacket year-round because it's one of those ones that you can remove the liner from to make a spring coat. I've got a dress overcoat to wear when I'm wearing a suit, but otherwise, who needs more than one winter coat?

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Somewhere in the average and up range, I guess. No at-fault accidents in the 6 years I've had my license, generally very sensible about following rules and whatnot, mistakes are rare and consistently corrected without hurting anyone... I'm far from perfect, but I certainly feel quite a bit more competent than many other people I see on the roads (recognizing that there's a major sampling bias involved in that perception).

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Master_Magnus posted...

It doesn't make any sense for me to have to buy the same game again to get any upgrades.

Sure it does. There are many reasons why it might not be practical to deliver those upgrades to older versions or offer a special purchase option for existing owners, not least of which is the fact that existing owners generally don't care that much and it's therefore rarely worthwhile to put in any work to get the content to them.

Master_Magnus posted...

It's wrong that I have to buy the same game twice ever.

You never *have* to. You either choose to because you feel it'll be worth the extra cost, or you choose not to because you don't. Those are the only two possibilities, neither of which amount to forcing you to buy the game any number of times.

Master_Magnus posted...

For my entire life I bought a videogame and got a complete definitive game and that was it.

I've demonstrated how false this is. Remakes are becoming more common as the library of remake-eligible games grows (a natural consequence of the passage of time), and the WiiU is certainly seeing an unusual amount of it, but enhanced rereleases of games have been happening for pretty much as long as home gaming has been a thing.

Master_Magnus posted...

LOL only Wii U games sink to $10 used.

Not at all. Unless they're particularly high-demand or hard to find used copies of (which, actually often applies to used Nintendo games), it's usually pretty easy to find older games for $10. Heck, without even looking at used copies, most non-Nintendo games routinely drop to ~$10 in Steam sales and the like, even within their own generation (not that generations mean anything on the PC).

Master_Magnus posted...

Too late to be healthy.

Therapy can always help, provided you actually want to improve and stick with it for long enough. Seriously, look into it. Your self-destructive fixation on this issue is suggesting to me you've either got OCD or some manner of ASD (I'm not a medical professional and this is not a proper diagnostic setting, so do not under any circumstances treat this rough guess as being more credible than a diagnosis from an actual doctor), both of which can pretty easily be treated well enough to improve your quality of life. You don't have to resign yourself to being unhealthy and unhappy.

Now, whether or not you can afford therapy is another issue, but this isn't a topic to get into the evils of for-profit medicine.

Master_Magnus posted...

Now all I can hope for is for the game industry to stop exploiting my obsession for infinite money.

That's never going to happen, particularly where they don't really care about your particular obsession. Porting WiiU games to the Switch is not a matter of trying to convince WiiU owners to buy the games a second time, it's a matter of trying to sell the games to Switch owners that didn't buy them the first time (mostly because they didn't have a WiiU). MK8 Deluxe has sold ~29 million copies, compared to 8.5 million for the original. Even if every single person that bought the original also bought the remake, that's still only a third of the sales, and I can guarantee that's a very unreasonable assumption to make (if nothing else, I can personally vouch for one person who did not rebuy it).

Quite simply, the money is not in convincing WiiU owners to buy their games a second time. That's a nice bonus when they can get it, but the real money is in the fact that 5 times more people own a Switch than ever owned a WiiU, and that figure just keeps climbing. That's who they're selling this to; don't delude yourself into thinking they care that much about double dipping into your wallet.

Master_Magnus posted...

Extra implies that it's not significant.

No, "extra" implies that it's not necessary. Which it isn't. The game was perfectly enjoyable before this content existed, and that game hasn't changed. It's just as enjoyable now without the new content as it was then because the experience is identical (ignoring changes in personal perception due to evolving standards for gameplay conventions, controls, and other aspects that factor into determining how well a game has aged). That means the new content is something extra added to provide further enjoyment.

Will the experience without the content be inferior to the enhanced experience? Probably. But being less enjoyable and being unenjoyable are two very different things. As I mentioned earlier, I like eating cake with ice cream and berries better than without, but cake on its own is still a perfectly complete dessert.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

grimhilde00 posted...

You mean how do you test al dente before the pasta is drained?

I just lift some out of the water and pinch it with my fingers >.> A little hot but eh

I usually just eat one, unless it's clearly not done yet. Also a little hot, but individual noodles cool down pretty quickly once they're out of the water.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Master_Magnus posted...

That's wrong then.

Not remotely. When you buy a product, you buy that product. You do not - unless otherwise specified - buy a lifelong commitment to provide you with any enhancements that may subsequently be developed for that product. That wouldn't make any sense at all.

Master_Magnus posted...

Yeah but you got the discount. This port will never be discounted to $10, because Nintendo is super greedy now.

You'll probably be able to find a used copy for $10 in a decade or so. If you aren't patient enough for that, it will almost certainly see periodic discounts down to $30 in eShop sales by the end of the Switch's lifetime, or potentially even lower if they offer a digital port of it on their next system (which is how I got MP Trilogy so cheaply).

Master_Magnus posted...

To me it's super important. Important enough that I can't live without it.

That's very much a you problem, one which you should perhaps be seeking therapy to help with because that kind of obsession is very much not conducive to living a mentally healthy life.

Master_Magnus posted...

I bought it now to play PS4 games.

That's fair.

Master_Magnus posted...

If Nintendo wasn't going to make the Wii U a special club they should have axed it just like Virtual Boy instead of selling it for years.

They didn't set out to make it a failure. That's just how it went (helped along by some questionable marketing decisions, starting with the name). Once it became apparent that it wasn't salvageable, they did axe it pretty much as soon as they had another revenue stream lined up to fill the void it left, but until that point, they continued to try to make it the best console they could manage. I really don't know what else you want from them than that, other than apparently to never let anyone that didn't buy a WiiU play those games because reasons.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Soup_or_Science posted...

Ok anyway, this actually kind of makes me want to try them out + Switch. Are these two different games or what?

Far as I can tell, it's a port of Mario 3D World from the WiiU, with an extra subgame added a la New Super Luigi U. I don't believe we have any details about the scope of Bowser's Fury yet. Based on the similar addition to the remake of Mario & Luigi:Superstar Saga, it may not actually be all that much, but the trailer does make it look more promising than that one (which was barely more than a minor sidequest).

If you haven't played SM3DW yet, I'd recommend picking up this version because it is an excellent game (personally one of my least favourite 3D Marios, but many others consider it one of their favourites) and this will likely be the definitive version of it. If you do already own it on WiiU, I'd hold off and see whether or not the extra content is worth repurchasing the game.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Master_Magnus posted...

And if I buy a $60 game, I should get all the bonus without buying it again, ever.

That's just not how the world works, nor will it ever be.

Master_Magnus posted...

If you bought MP3 at launch, you were screwed, but you didn't miss out on anything.

I effectively missed out on the opportunity to save $40 ($60 for 3 games=$20 per game), plus it made it that much harder to justify buying the upgraded versions of 1 and 2 (hence I didn't buy the trilogy until it was discounted to $10 in the WiiU rerelease).

Master_Magnus posted...

If you bought Super Mario 3D World at launch, you are missing important content that you can only get if you bend down and let Nintendo know that you're happy with the Deluxe port scam where you have to buy a game a possibly infinite amount of times to get all the content.

The content isn't that important. It's certainly not $40 worth of important, which is the comparison I'm making there.

Master_Magnus posted...

Dreamcast had more exclusives by the time its generation ended than Wii U. That makes Wii U not even up to Dreamcast standards.

That has nothing to do with anything you or I said leading up to it.

Master_Magnus posted...

Sure there is something to be gained by keeping games tied down to old systems: it is a reward for people who bought that console and protects the legacy of the console maker.

As I said, "legacy" means nothing except what can be leveraged for PR purposes, and the Switch's success shows that Nintendo's reputation wasn't that badly damaged by the WiiU. People who bought the console were already rewarded for doing so by being able to play the games they bought. I have no reason to expect more of a reward than that for conducting a simple business transaction.

Master_Magnus posted...

People buy the PS5 because of future games.

So why not wait until those future games come out to buy it?

Master_Magnus posted...

I bought a Wii U because Nintendo exclusives were never exclusive just for the system's lifetime.

Then you have some really weird priorities that you should really examine before letting them influence any further $300+ purchasing decisions. Game systems are purchased to play games, not to stroke your ego with the idea that you're part of some special club with exclusive experiences. Again, you really need to get over yourself and stop being so melodramatic.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Depending on the job, you may be able to get some experience for your resume via a volunteer position.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

LinkPizza posted...

kore

She prefers the name "Persephone," now.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Master_Magnus posted...

It's probably enough to sell it at $10.

Both times that I know of Nintendo doing the standalone DLC thing (NSLU and Torna), the price point has been $30. If it were only going to be enough content to be able to sell it for $10, they probably wouldn't bother developing it to function independently.

Master_Magnus posted...

Most of those ports were just bundles of existing games, so if you bought those games at launch you didn't have to buy the ports.

An entire game (or more) is a whole lot more content than you're pissing yourself over here. I'm far more bothered by MP Trilogy releasing a mere two years after I paid the same price for MP3 alone than I am by SM3DW releasing with a few extra levels 7 years later.

Master_Magnus posted...

Exclusives on Wii U weren't exclusive for long enough for the Wii U to be up to Nintendo standards or even Sega standards.

Sonic Adventure 2 was ported to the GC (with extra content) 8 months after it came out on the Dreamcast. PSO was ported to GC 13 months after the release of v2, with all of Episode 2 added to it (plus some pretty substantial balance tweaks, including increasing some drop rates from literally millionths of a percent to merely 1/50,000), then again to Xbox 6 months after that. You had a hard enough sell for the "Nintendo standards" part, given how many examples I've already given to show precedent for remake windows like this, but bringing in "Sega standards" is just laughable.

The WiiU's exclusives were exclusive for the system's lifetime. That's all you can reasonably expect of exclusives, given that the whole point of their exclusivity is to sell the system. Once the system is no longer selling, exclusivity stops mattering. There is nothing to be gained - for anyone - by keeping games tied down to systems that people can only find on Ebay and Craigslist.

Master_Magnus posted...

Demon's Souls doesn't have any new content that I know.

So the PS5 version offers nothing the much-cheaper PS3 version doesn't. Sounds like a great reason to buy a whole console.

Master_Magnus posted...

Spiderman Miles Morales is sold at $50

Oh, my mistake. The point still stands, though.

Master_Magnus posted...

I'm not being melodramatic.

You very unarguably are.

Master_Magnus posted...

I bought a Wii U and several Wii U games for nothing

You bought them to play them and enjoy them. Which you did. I don't know why you're expecting more than that, and I especially don't know why you're acting like you got nothing when you got exactly what you intended to get.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Master_Magnus posted...

No, but it is reasonable for them to sell the Switch port at a discount to those who have the Wii U version.

That may or may not be technically feasible. There's precedent for it, with improved WiiU versions of VC games being available to people that already owned them on the Wii for a small upgrade fee, but that relied on doing a Wii-->WiiU system transfer so the WiiU shop could confirm that you owned the Wii version. Where there's no such system transfer option between the WiiU and Switch, that's less simple to set up. The fact that the same Nintendo account can be used across systems would facilitate it, but the WiiU end of that may not be set up to allow that. It'd be nice, but I also understand them not putting in the effort to enable it (especially where we're talking about Nintendo and an online system).

Master_Magnus posted...

Or in the case of Super Mario 3D World, to sell Bowser's Fury separately.

It won't surprise me if they do, but that'll likely depend on just how much content it is. It may not actually be that much, in which case it'd be silly to do a standalone release (and, in turn, to be this butthurt over it).

Master_Magnus posted...

There are far more examples of Wii U ports than of other Nintendo ports having significant content added.

There are, but again, that's largely owing to how poorly the WiiU performed.

Master_Magnus posted...

Super Mario 64 was the only 3D Mario that had something like a Deluxe port and even then the new content was mostly a rehash of existing powerups.

SMB+Duck Hunt gave you two games for the price of one. Mario All Stars gave you four games for the price of one. OoT Master Quest completely overhauled every dungeon, and wasn't even available for sale (literally not available, not your version of "it costs too much so it's impossible to buy") until the 3DS port a decade later. Metroid Prime 3 was rereleased a mere two years later with two whole other games bundled in with it (each of which were also rereleased with control overhauls in such a bundle). Rereleases with major additional content are nothing new, even relatively soon after the original comes out.

Master_Magnus posted...

They didn't deliver because you could skip the Wii U and get all of its games just a few years later with more content to boot.

Which still doesn't mean they weren't exclusives. Heck, every game offers better value if you buy them later, given that their prices inevitably drop (by relatively little in the case of Nintendo games), far more so than the value of any of these games is affected by the additional content.

Master_Magnus posted...

Gamers shouldn't give money to companies that don't take their consoles seriously and screws people who buy their consoles.

Nobody's been screwed here. You're being melodramatic.

Master_Magnus posted...

I already did, I bought a PS5. Sony doesn't lock DLC behind ports.

The PS5's entire noteworthy launch lineup consists of a port of a PS3 game and glorified DLC for the PS4 Spiderman game sold as a standalone game, both of which are sold for $70. Not exactly the best example you could use there.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

TheOkHornedRat posted...

give it a few decades.

if Ghengis Khan lived today we would all "subjectively" see him for the monster he was. since he lived 800 years ago and we are so far removed from the atrocities committed now people cant stop talking about how he opened up trade between the world and helped spread multiculturalism and oh he was so religiously tolerant (so long as your prayed for him).

ask a french person today if they think Julius ceasar's sacking of Gaul was worth bringing france into the european fold and a lot of them will tell you "oh yes absolutely" which is easy for them to say because they werent the ones being butchered in droves, their ancestors were.

people talk about how oh, Alexander the Great spread Hellenism across the middle east and spread this culture as if that was ever his intention. he did what he did for alexander the great, and nobody else. everything else is an unintentional byproduct. they shot a fucking arrow and then we painted a target around it afterwards and called it a bullseye.

the holocaust is a touchier subject because there are still people and relatives of people who lived through it living today. give it a couple hundred years and people will openly talk about the positives of the third Reich. I mean hell, nazi scientists took us to the moon for crying out loud. Even the jews themselves might look more positively on it since it directly led to the formation of the Israel, returning them to their promised land.

its revisionist history. once you remove yourself from the mountains of corpses and try to look at the completely unintentional byproducts of these horrible people's horrible actions all of a sudden they stop looking so bad to the general population.

That's not an invalid point, but I feel like that's less likely to happen in today's hyper-interconnected world. Historically, short-term atrocities faded away behind long-term benefits largely because people stopped being able to remember the atrocities and could only see the benefits. We live in a world, however, where that information is never going to go away. The Internet ensures that people will always know how terrible Hitler was (if for no other reason than that his terribleness has basically become a meme at this point), which undermines any efforts to pretend otherwise.

Perhaps more significantly, though, Hitler lost. That means the modern reaction to his oppression is not coming from an oppressed people, but rather from those who liberated those oppressed people and continue to call themselves righteous for it (which I'd agree they were, but we're being neutral here). That means any efforts to suggest that Hitler had some decent ideas are generally going to be shut down, not because people are still around who remember how bad he was, but because that goes against the dominant narrative. The examples you've given are cases where the victor's narrative has outlived the objections of their victims, but in the case of the Holocaust, the victor's narrative aligns with that of the victims, so both can be expected to survive.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Master_Magnus posted...

If I have to buy the same game at full price, then I'm not able to play it. It is insane to buy the same game multiple times. Specially since I don't usually replay content.

That remains your choice. It's a pretty sensible choice, generally speaking, but if it causes you this much distress, perhaps not.

Master_Magnus posted...

A game that is incomplete but you can't complete because they don't make DLC for that version is not enjoyable.

If a game doesn't feel like it's missing anything, then it's complete. Any further content is merely a bonus.

Master_Magnus posted...

It's them who lock DLC behind a port. It's them who charge me $60 for 3 hours of content. It's them who are unreasonable and want to make people like me who want complete games to waste a fortune on stuff that you don't want to get stuff that you want. They want to make it natural for people to double dip on games so you spend $120 on a $60 game. They are unreasonable ones.

Do you think adding new content to the original version is a free process? It takes roughly as much work as adding it to the port, but with a tiny fraction of the return. You really want to say that it's unreasonable not to do that?

Master_Magnus posted...

For decades I bought games once, only once and never missed any DLC.

If you want to ignore multiple examples of that happening in every decade since home gaming has been a significant thing, sure. Ignoring empirical reality for the sake of pissing yourself off more is rarely a very healthy idea, though.

Master_Magnus posted...

It's absurd that I can't get DLC for any game I already own.

Not remotely. If the copy you own is on a platform that no longer sees active support, there's absolutely no reason to expect developers to put work into developing content for that version. That's just not a sensible use of resources.

Master_Magnus posted...

Nintendo sold the Wii U with the promise of great exclusives

Which they delivered. The WiiU had plenty of great games that weren't available on any other system - exclusives. Then it died, and some of those old exclusives have been ported to the Switch so a wider audience can enjoy them. I don't know why you seem to think that more people enjoying games is a bad thing, especially when it means that the studios that produced said games are more capable of continuing to produce the games you enjoyed playing.

Master_Magnus posted...

Console makers that make a failed system shouldn't be able to remain in the console biz.

Says who? Again, this is not a matter of pride or honour or following "rules" or any nonsense like that. Anyone that is able to afford to make and sell consoles can make and sell consoles. The bottom line is the only thing that dictates that, not some arbitrary notion of who "deserves" to sell stuff.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Zeus posted...

When in doubt, scapegoat a group has been a pretty tried and true tactic throughout the ages. Of course, when the White House's videos were getting downvote bombed just a few years ago, I can't recall hearing a peep about it from you

Oh Zeus.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Krazy_Kirby posted...

so the holocaust is just subjectively bad? not inherently wrong?

Yes. That's what "complete moral subjectivity" means, and why people are discussing how absurd such a concept is. Technically, calling the holocaust bad is a subjective judgement. There is no objective basis for saying that. It is, however, so universal a subjective judgement as to be effectively objective, meaning pointing out that it's technically subjective is largely meaningless.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Master_Magnus posted...

It isn't a self-created problem because it's completely insane to spend $60 to get $10 worth of content. And not being able to play content ever because I bought the Wii U version is a slap in the face.

You are able to play it. You choose not to. That's self-created.

Master_Magnus posted...

More characters in a fighting game or a fixed battle mode in Mario Kart is never trivial.

Compared to the rest of the content in those games? It really is. It's enough that the enhanced version of the game is clearly the better one, given a choice where all other factors are equal, but it's not enough to make the game unenjoyable without it (unless, again, you throw a tantrum because Billy has more toys than you and sabotage your own ability to enjoy what you've got).

Master_Magnus posted...

I am not throwing a tantrum because another kid is playing with a toy that I don't have. I am here because I CANNOT buy the toys that I want because greedy devs refuse to sell them to me because they want me to buy a toy that I already have first. I need to buy the toys I want without buying anything I don't want.

They don't refuse to sell them to you. You refuse to buy them. What they refuse to do is put in the rather sizable amount of work that would be needed to create an option for you to purchase them exactly the way you want to, work which would generally not be worthwhile because most people aren't particularly interested in buying DLC for games they finished several years ago. Heck, I fully expect that even you wouldn't buy said DLC because all you seem to need to be happy is to have the option (that, or you'd demand that it be free or otherwise insist that whatever price they chose was unreasonable). That's a pretty reasonable thing to refuse to do.

Master_Magnus posted...

And games, are a necessity to me, just like food and water.

I'll say it again: You need to get over yourself. This melodrama is so utterly ridiculous that I struggle to believe there's a real human churning it out.

Master_Magnus posted...

I will never tolerate missing out on content on any videogame because the devs lock out content behind ports. I pay the game, I get all the content I want and never miss out on anything because devs demand me to buy the game again. I am only perfectly happy when I get all the content I care about in every game just buying it once.

You're gonna have to get over that. Remakes are a simple fact of life in the game industry, now that there's a significant amount of history to draw on and large demographics of gamers that have never played many of the games that are being remade.

Master_Magnus posted...

I need all the toys, just like it used to be for decades that I bought all the games just once and got all the content those games would ever have.

This has never been the case. Again, SMB was bundled with Duck Hunt in 1988, three years after its initial release, and 32 years ago. Heck, many NES games were enhanced ports of arcade games, even going back as far as '85. Such practices have become more common in recent years (largely due to the ever-expanding library of old content to remake), and again, the WiiU's gotten a lot of it more of it than most systems because it had so many quality exclusives that few people got to play because of how poorly the system sold, but there has never been a time when you could be completely confident that you could buy a game when it launched and never end up regretting that purchase because a better deal came along later.

Master_Magnus posted...

If they want to port those games then they must not add any new content. Period.

Again, that suggests that you fundamentally misunderstand the process. Teams that are porting games often have enough downtime to make slapping together some new content pretty easy, and (more importantly) being able to advertise ports with even just a token amount of bonus content makes them much more appealing to people who didn't buy the game in the first place. It's just sensible marketing. Expecting them not to market their products sensibly just to appease you is utterly absurd.

Master_Magnus posted...
Virtual Boy was axed just a year after release. They were 100% honest that they wouldn't support the Virtual Boy.

And the WiiU was axed 5 years after release. They were 100% honest that they wouldn't support it after that point. Prior to that point, they produced a reasonable number of exclusive games that ended up not being enough to attract people to the console (though that was more a marketing issue than anything else). After that point, they were under no obligation to continue supporting it. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make or what you believe happened.

Master_Magnus posted...
Only s*** console makers don't care about their legacy. The day there is a s*** XBox, Microsoft will leave the console biz. The day there is a s*** numbered Playstation, Sony will leave the console biz. These companies are serious and will never let any of their consoles fail unless they intend to leave the market. I will move on when Nintendo leaves the console biz.

You seem to think this is a matter of pride or honour or something similarly silly. It's not. It's a matter of money. Companies don't leave the console business because they're embarrassed by failed systems, they leave because those failures mean they can't continue to operate a sustainable business. Conversely, companies that are able to operate a sustainable business in spite of failed systems (as Nintendo has done following the Virtual Boy and WiiU) can be expected to remain in the console business because there's still money to be made.

"Legacy" has value only insofar as it can be leveraged for PR purposes. Anything beyond that is just you taking video games way too seriously.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Master_Magnus posted...

The Wii games on Wii U eshop technically weren't ports, they are just digital downloads.

They meant the games were no longer Wii exclusives, by the logic you're using here.

Master_Magnus posted...

I am bothered because I will NEVER be able to play this content because they will NEVER sell it to me at a reasonable price because they are locking it behind a port.

There's a very substantial difference between "I can't play this" and "I won't play this because it costs more than I'm willing to pay." The former is somebody else's fault, the latter is entirely a self-created problem. Regardless, being this bothered by it is ridiculous. It's mildly annoying at worst, not the deeply insulting slap in the face you seem to think it is.

Master_Magnus posted...

And no, this isn't bonus content, it's an entire game (albeit a really short one)

In the vast majority of cases, it is just bonus content. Bowser's Fury is actually looking to be a bit more substantial, such that it may yet see a standalone release (much like NSLU or the Xenoblade 2 Torna campaign did), but every other example is pretty trivial stuff. As I said, it's generally enough to make the remake the preferred version of the game, but very much not enough to act like you're playing a defective product for not having it.

Master_Magnus posted...

And if I miss out on any content I want from any game because the devs are locking it behind a port, that retroactively ruins any enjoyment I ever had. I only enjoy playing a game if I don't regret buying it ever.

Again, that's roughly akin to a spoiled toddler throwing a tantrum because he realizes another kid is playing with a toy he doesn't have. You're going to have a really rough time being a gamer moving forward if enhanced rereleases make you regret buying games you were perfectly happy to play at the time. I encourage you to get over yourself to avoid that.

Master_Magnus posted...

If they can't sell me the new content at a reasonable price they should not be adding content to these ports and make new games instead.

Suggesting that they should just "make new games instead" completely misunderstands how much work goes into new games compared to ports. The two are not remotely comparable, let alone equivalent. So yes, you'd rather the games not be ported at all, meaning nobody gets the new content and millions of Switch owners that skipped the WiiU never get to experience the games you enjoyed, all because you don't want to feel like you're missing out on an extra character.

Get over yourself.

Master_Magnus posted...

Those were only a handful of games.

I mean, I could keep going pretty easily. It's just not particularly worthwhile to go digging for release dates like that.

Master_Magnus posted...

Saturn and Dreamcast sold less than Wii U

And, subsequently, most of their notable games have been ported many times since then, including ports within their respective generations (mostly in the case of Dreamcast, which saw flagship titles like Sonic Adventure 1/2 ported to GC). Has that stopped the systems from being remembered for their exclusives? Not remotely, because that's not how people work.

Master_Magnus posted...
And I do care if Wii U is remembered as a s*** console because that makes Nintendo a s*** console maker no better than Atari.

One commercial failure and Nintendo's just as bad as Atari? Overdramatic much? Have you forgotten that Nintendo also made the Virtual Boy, which failed a whole lot harder than the WiiU (~95% fewer units sold) and hasn't even been able to maintain a legacy of having great games because its games weren't able to be played by anyone other than the handful of people that bought one? Nobody cares. Failed consoles happen, people move on. You should too.

Master_Magnus posted...
Sega went out of the console biz for far less.

Sega went out of the console business not because of one bad console (or even any truly bad consoles), but because of a long series of bad business decisions that meant their console business was unsustainable and they would have gone bankrupt if they tried to keep it going. Nintendo's not going to go bankrupt any time soon, and certainly won't over one bad console (especially not if they can port that console's games to their newest system to recover the money they didn't make due to the WiiU's poor sales, which they can despite how personally insulted you seem to be by it).

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

trodi_911 posted...

That breakfast shish kebab actually seems pretty tasty and a fun way to have breakfast.

It's a neat way to serve it, but I don't think you could actually cook everything that way, given the different cook times and methods needed.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

TheOkHornedRat posted...

he seems like a return to the standard level of incompetence to me, which is a welcome change, but goddamn, we should be able to do better.

That's about my opinion on the matter. Will he be a great president? Doubtful. Will the next four years be a nice break from the narcissistic insanity of the last president? Absolutely.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Master_Magnus posted...

Nintendo games were almost always exclusive for at least two generations. Wii U is the sole exception.

Several Wii games were available for download on the WiiU, including Mario Galaxy, Metroid Prime Trilogy, and Xenoblade Chronicles. Twilight Princess was remade on the WiiU (arguably a GC game and not a Wii one, but given that the GC version came out after the Wii launched, I don't think you can call that a 2-generation gap). Pikmin 1 and 2 were given enhanced ports with Wii controls, as were Metroid Prime 1 and 2 (the aforementioned trilogy) and Resident Evil 4 (which had already lost its exclusive status to the PS2, but I feel it can still count). Ocarina of Time was ported to the GC with exclusive content (Master Quest) that you could only get if you preordered Wind Waker, then again alongside Majora's Mask (and LoZ and AoL) for the Collector's Edition disc that was only available through Club Nintendo's predecessor.

And that's just off the top of my head, without getting into the technicality that "at least two generations" means that systems with only one generation between them could also count (i.e. WWHD, the GBA port of ALttP...). This really isn't anything new. It's unusual for it to happen to such an extent, certainly, but as I've said, it's unusual for a console to sell as poorly as the WiiU did. It's both expected and reasonable that Nintendo and their studios would step up that porting in an effort to actually turn a profit on those games.

Master_Magnus posted...

Not being able to play DLC that I want because developers want you to buy the same game again ruins videogames for me, because it means that I will always get games with missing content that I will never get to play, because locking $10 DLC behind a $60 port is the same as them refusing to sell that DLC to me.

Your experience with games you played 4-5 years ago is retroactively ruined by new content coming out that costs more than you're willing to pay? As in, you enjoyed it, but now that you realize you could enjoy it even more but won't because it's too expensive, you no longer like the games? That's just plain silly.

If the games were complete when you bought them, then they're still complete. It's the same game you enjoyed back then. Anything else that's been added since is just a bonus, and it's thoroughly unreasonable to be this bothered by not getting that bonus content on your terms.

Master_Magnus posted...

If I buy a $60 game I shouldn't be locked out of any content forever because greedy publishers demand to purchase the game again just to get $10 DLC.

So you would rather they not port the game, meaning you still don't get the new content, plus nobody else gets to enjoy the game and the publishers don't get to make the money they deserve for producing such quality games? Because that's really the only other option here. Developing the added content as DLC for the original versions wouldn't be impossible, but it would almost certainly not be commercially viable given how low the install base is on those original versions and the fact that most people that own them have already played their fill and aren't exactly eager to buy new DLC for them. That really just leaves not porting them as the only alternative. That, or porting them with no added content, but that's also not exactly a commercially savvy move.

Master_Magnus posted...

Most Nintendo remakes come 10-15 years after the original.

Pikmin 1: 8 years
Pikmin 2: 8 years
Metroid Prime: 7 years
Metroid Prime 2: 5 years
Metroid Prime 3: 2 years (it was rereleased as part of the Trilogy, not even the next generation)
OoT: 4 years
Super Mario Bros: 3 years (packaged with Duck Hunt)
SMB 2: 5 years (All Stars)
SMB3: 3 years (All Stars)

Again, this is nothing new. SMB got bundled with Duck Hunt 32 years ago, then rereleased on an entirely different system 5 years later (along with 2 and 3).

Master_Magnus posted...

If I buy a Nintendo console I expect a console that will remembered until the end of time because of great exclusives

The WiiU sold so poorly that if the exclusives weren't ported, they generally wouldn't be remembered either way. Having great exclusives doesn't mean much if hardly anybody gets to play them. As it stands, most people do know them as WiiU games (at least to as much of an extent as matters at all) despite them being ported, much like nobody thinks of OoT as a GC, Wii, or 3DS game. It was an exclusive in its time, and that's all anyone pays attention to.

And if they do forget? I genuinely struggle to think of anything that matters less than that. It certainly doesn't matter to enough of an extent to demand that Nintendo not rerelease the games on the Switch for the sake of preserving that legacy, and it certainly doesn't matter to enough of an extent to be angered by such ports.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

LinkPizza posted...

I disagree with that statement, tbh. People always said that on a lot of game boards, but its actually a dumb argument. Without the DLC, the games were still finished, and a complete game... Like how Hyrule Warriors was a complete game, and the DLC just gave more game...

There are cases where not having the DLC does result in an incomplete experience, though, particularly when the DLC is available right at launch (often with multiple purchase tiers for the game, some of which use terms like "Definitive," "Ultimate," or "Complete" despite not actually having all the content in them). Hyrule Warriors was good DLC: If you didn't buy it, you still had a very solid game to play. If you did buy it, you got even more solid game to play (at an incredible price point, no less).

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Far-Queue posted...

Until that last line I was buying into it, about to go check the Googles to see if it was true lol

The trick to effective bullshitting is to find a delicate balance between using jargon/citing technical details that most people do recognize as valid, and interspersing that among falsehoods that sound just esoteric enough to convince people that their ignorance is the only reason they haven't heard of it. It's relatively easy with fields like computer science, where people do generally recognize that they know very little about the field and are therefore more likely to believe anyone that speaks confidently on the subject while remaining consistent with the facts they already recognize.

Biology (my actual field of study) is another fun one to do it with. A lot of people understand just how weird the natural world gets, but don't necessarily have the advanced knowledge needed to know what's actually inconsistent (especially where that advanced knowledge is often pretty arbitrary, like there being no terrestrial cephalopods). You tell people about flatworm penis fencing, the South American tree octopus swinging from branches, and Japanese bees cooking giant hornets alive, and they're going to be really hard-pressed to tell you just how many lies you told them.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

LinkPizza posted...

I guess I didnt really mean unfinished. But it is better...

It's a distinction that comes up a lot in talking about DLC. There are a lot of people that feel that the mere existence of DLC means that the base game is unfinished, or otherwise not a complete game, and that the only way to have a complete game is to buy all of the content. I've never liked that attitude. There are plenty of games out there with DLC that are perfectly satisfactory experiences on their own, without buying the DLC, and lumping them in with games that have actually been carved up for the sake of selling the rest of the game back to us (which there are also plenty of examples of) is extremely unfair to those that are doing DLC right. As a concept, DLC is great. It gives people the option to buy more content for games they like well enough to want more of, and I think it's important to keep the focus on the studios that do it wrong instead of blaming the concept as a whole and damaging those that do it right.

Basically:
Good DLC: 1+0.2=1.2
Bad DLC: 0.8+0.2=1

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Zeus posted...

ITP: "A criminal isn't somebody convicted of a crime, it's just anybody I dislike and they should be made to face consequences for me disliking them rather than, you know, any of that legal process or even going through anything related to those highly politically-motivated, partisan accusations!"

Do you actually believe Trump hasn't done anything criminal? Bearing in mind that he was successfully impeached (read: found guilty of a crime) once already, and likely will be a second time as well?

How do you get Internet that far underground?

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Presumably what they did with their lives prior to 2016, whatever that may be.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

LinkPizza posted...

And they do have the remake of WW, which was good and makes the original feel unfinished...

Even then, I wouldn't say it made the original feel unfinished. It was just better, thanks to a few excellent additions and tweaks. A slice of cake with ice cream and strawberries on it may be better than one without, but that doesn't mean I'm going to feel like the slice of cake is unfinished if served on its own.

Zeus posted...

Just look at SM64DS (although that kinda sucked for the run controls)

Honestly, as weird and awkward as it was due to being so different from prior control schemes, I found that using the thumb pad for running actually worked pretty well. I'm not at all surprised that no other games (that I know of) did the same, but after getting used to it, I thought it was fine.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Master_Magnus posted...

Wii U didn't have exclusives like other Nintendo consoles, everything was ported to Switch.

As a concept, "exclusive" generally only looks at a single generation. It's silly to say "the NES didn't have any decent exclusives" because virtually all of its noteworthy games have been rereleased in some capacity or another. When the NES was contemporary, you had to buy it in order to access those games. That's all "exclusive" has ever meant, especially as we move into an era where digital distribution makes it easy to port older games to every new system. Again, surely you're not going to suggest that rereleasing any game shafts the early adopters.

Master_Magnus posted...

Also the Switch ports have so much new stuff that makes the Wii U version feel like an unfinished beta

They really don't. For one thing, "there's new content the original version doesn't have that means the original is unfinished" is just a silly attitude to have. Unfinished games feel unfinished when you play them, and that wasn't the case for any WiiU exclusives I can think of (not the decent ones that are seeing ports, anyway). Retroactively deciding after you've already been satisfied by them that they were actually unfinished just because some new content later is roughly akin to a spoiled toddler throwing a tantrum when he realizes one of his peers is playing with a toy he doesn't have.

For another, the new content is rarely that significant. It's enough to make choosing the remake over the original easy (presuming such a choice is actually available and there isn't a massive price difference confounding the issue, which may not be a reasonable assumption), but by and large, I wouldn't even bother spending $10 on a hypothetical upgrade option if it existed (and the cases where I would, that option's already been made available in the form of DLC for the original game, like the MK8 track packs, NSLU, or the Hyrule Warriors expansion pass, and I already have purchased it).

Is it unfortunate that these remakes are coming out so relatively soon after their originals? Kind of, though even then it's not actually that soon in many cases (Mario 3D World came out in November 2013, over 7 years before this port is being released). Some of them were really close (Pokken Tournament DX came out a year and a half after the original's NA launch), particularly the ones that were used to flesh out the Switch's launch window lineup, but most of them did wait at least 3-4 years. That's actually a pretty reasonable gap. But even with some of them being relatively close, feeling "shafted" and bitter over having jumped on the bandwagon earlier isn't particularly reasonable. I'd much rather see the studios that created these excellent games get the revenue and recognition they deserve for doing so than see them take a loss for the sake of making me feel like my "loyalty" has been rewarded.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Zeus posted...

Generally speaking, "who cares?" is asked as a s***ty rhetorical question because usually people clearly care and have good reason to do so.

adjl posted...

Generally speaking, people asking "who cares?" in this sort of context are not literally asking which specific entities have an opinion on this, but rather asking why anyone feels this is worth caring about to the point of compromising somebody's livelihood.

I gave you an explicit challenge, and you fell flat on your face in a mud puddle and gurgled out the same nonsense I already addressed.

Zeus posted...

Being against sex work is one of the only issues both sides of the aisle can agree on.

Even ignoring the very obvious fact that it's really not (you do get people opposing it from both the left and right, but that opposition is very far from being unanimous), you're once again arguing with "that's just how it is" instead of actually justifying it. You should really try posting something with actual semantic value.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

TheWorstPoster posted...

Is that why, for instance, African borders have absolutely no respect to languages, tribes, or cultures when they were created, leading to wars and other conflicts?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LvKONiRHgkU

Multiculturalism was never a positive virtue. No matter who you are or where you came from, the best way for a nation to survive is to assimilate.

That has absolutely nothing to do with anything I said. It's a decent case against having colonists draw arbitrary borders and then continuing to enforce them after leaving because the colony isn't profitable anymore, which is the reason all of those borders care so little for native cultures. That's not bringing immigrants into a country, though. That's trying to impose a country on people who were already living there and have never drawn such borders.

TheWorstPoster posted...

Name me one instance where cultures within one nation that segregated themselves from other cultures have created any form of unity.

That's really not how immigration works. You don't get complete segregation unless the native population insists on it (which is a racism problem, not an immigration one). You get immigrants preferentially hanging around with those of similar backgrounds, largely due to the convenience of not having a language barrier, but that doesn't mean their everyday lives aren't influenced by the cultures of the country around them, especially over time.

You seem very keen on this concept of "assimilating to American values," but I've yet to see you elaborate on it. What, exactly, does that mean?

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

TheWorstPoster posted...

Want another source?

https://tinyurl.com/yxjmbcqa

An antifa affiliate was present and filmed a Trump supporter getting shot for trying to assassinate the vice president, so that means the whole thing was a false flag operation orchestrated by antifa. Right...

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

TheWorstPoster posted...

Explain how the "disinformation" has been unsubstantiated.

Have you substantiated it?

TheWorstPoster posted...

The term "melting pot" was supposed to mean that people from all origins would give up on their foreign cultures and meld together into a singular cultural identity.

No, it means that the resulting culture is a mix of everything that's been throwing into the pot. If you throw chocolate into a melting pot full of cheese, it doesn't turn into cheese. It leaves you with a blend of cheese and chocolate.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

TheWorstPoster posted...

The term "conspiracy theory" was popularized by the CIA back in the 1960's in order to discredit any evidence stemming from that agency, especially those coming from any information regarding the John F. Kennedy assassination, and what was going on in the Soviet Union and Vietnam, as well as the MKULTRA program.

Use a better term please.

Do you have any suggestions for better terms to describe a theory about conspiracies than "conspiracy theory"?

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Joe_Biden posted...

america aligns with both their culture and values

that's the entire point of the United States.

it's literally an immigrant nation.

Eeyup. You'd be hard-pressed to find a country that doesn't have elements of its culture and values woven into the US' in some capacity. It's still going to be a change to move there, obviously, but there's something there pretty much anyone can identify with to enough of an extent to call the country home.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Catholicism is a denomination of Christianity. That said, the level of bureaucracy and deference to higher-ups within the organization has a tendency to amount to worshipping the organization instead of the God it purports to follow.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Icoyar wants us all to remember that migrant caravans consist largely of terrible people just itching for a chance to rape his girlfr- wait, no, they're going to steal his ca- wait, not that, they're going to live off of the taxes he pa- oh no, not that either. What's his problem with them again? I can't seem to remember.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

TheWorstPoster posted...

How many of you will be happy in 4 years from now when Biden's policies will make you all miserable?

Have you increased your fibre intake in preparation for how upset you are today?

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Spirituality is generally a good thing, and at its core, religion offers a convenient way to organize, learn, teach, and discuss spirituality in a community setting. That's also a good thing, I'd say. Unfortunately, a lot of organized religions interject a whole lot of other harmful and/or manipulative stuff in there for the personal gain of those at the top, and that's really bad. I don't think that necessarily counts as a point against the concept of religion, though, just that people need to stop accepting and using "it's my religion" as an excuse for doing bad things.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.