Wexter

@-wc- I agree! Despite the credit that is there is perfectly okay (this is not your average remaster, and is closer to a remake similar to Bluepoint's Daemon Souls remake... who I don't think ever credited Fromsoft or Hidetaka Miyazaki in its credits... from what I can find) I don't see the issue with just having a Special Thanks at the end and listing the names of the original team. Sure the credits would be longer, but I think that is only fair.

@johnvboy No issues friend! Always a pleasant interaction even if we don't agree.

@Tober LiamR has rubbed me the wrong way too... but I don't think this response is very fair either. In the creative industry it was very common for companies to ignore and even disregard the talent that made the game. Castlevania and Contra being two very notable examples where we have no idea who most of the dev teams were. Then there are examples like Yoko Shimomura who is best known for her work on Kingdom Hearts and Final Fantasy XV. For the longest time we had no idea she worked on Street Fighter 2 and other Capcom arcade classics because they made all developers go under pseudonyms... which you can imagine an industry which is seen as male dominated how the early female contributors have been largely ignored for those contributions because of those practices. I almost guarantee if we did not have Shimomura's later work with Squaresoft/Enix she'd have been a forgotten contributor and don't get me started on people like Tommy Tallarico. Just YouTube his name, he has become legendary for his lack of giving credit to other people... I'm sure his mother is very proud.

But, I also think other people deserve more credit then they get. Think for example the people at Microsoft who developed Windows 10 and 11... you have to dig through pages and pages of Linkedin pages to get a complete list of who made two of the most important operating systems currently in circulation.

I think there are two very strong extremes we need to be aware of and not fall for the bait and get emotionally attached to a topic and miss the forest for the trees in these kinds of situations.

@Martijn87 I really want to see your designs! I love that kind of thing as I have tons of artbooks from small name artists to large published works by Dark Horse. Shame you're not getting proper credit if the work is still being used... then again if this is like the automotive industry those sketch artists are the unsung heroes.

@Serpenterror I concur. Playing any game in stretch really screws up the game and makes it look ugly in a lot of cases.

@LiamR Am I saying that I have no empathy for them? If you've read my comments you'd know this is not my preferred way for them to be credited either. But, this idea that their careers may hang on a remaster they had no involvement in does make me wonder what projects they have worked on between Prime 1 and now. Can you link me to said interviews? Please enlighten me. I want to be corrected because I like being intellectually honest on these topics and while I feel for them, but calling me a chump when I'm just giving my opinion does not speak highly of your professionalism.

EDIT: And I have also had issues with the genius game dev label as well. The idea that the monolithic guy in the chair deserves soul credit for a work. It is one of the reasons I have major problems with Hideo Kojima and the "A Hideo Kojima Games" label. I'm all for making sure the little guy gets their credit. But, you'd rather call me an unempathetic chump eh instead of actually asking me that question.

@larryisaman here's the rub... They kinda did. They got thanked as part of the "based on the work by the Metroid Prime development staff" message in the credits. They did not get credit by name, but the crediting was there. Let's not pretend that message was not there at all! If they received no thanks or recognition I'm with you that's not okay, but that's not what we're discussing. What is being discussed is if that message was enough. And the original Prime credits is very, and I mean very accessible. You can find out who worked on what in 60 seconds.

I personally think a special thanks with a list of names would had been more appropriate. But, then we would then be discussing if that is enough. But, this remaster is more a remake and then were caught in a ship of Theseus paradox. How, much of the original work is still there and does the original person deserve the same recognition if their original work is no longer present (like the infamous doors). That's the discussion we should be having not this mythical idea that the original team did not credit at all... Which is not true as the article has the very credit in it.

@LiamR I don't think it's ignorance as I think a lot of people recognize that. I think people are more wanting the people who worked on the remaster to be properly recognized for their work compared to the group who have already received fountains of praise the past 20 years due to their credits on Prime on the GCN and Wii (who still got credit for their work. Not by name, but as a thank you to the original dev team message). I also highly doubt someone who worked on the original Prime's next job will hinge on getting a credit on a remaster of their 20 year old work... If it does I'm really concerned about their choice of projects the past 20 years 🤔

Glad the Japanese Police are taking things like this seriously now. After the tragedy at Kyoto Ani (look it up, it was terrible) people like this should be arrested on the spot for even threatening such a thing.

@larryisaman I think that is a little bit of a disingenuous argument. Credit was given in the form of a based off the work of the original dev team credit. It's not like that credit list is not available as it's listed on the Wiki, Mobygames and other sources. If someone was curious who those were they can find the information within 60 seconds. It's not like they weren't credited at all.

On a personal level I think the work done on this "remaster" is substantial enough that the new team deserves top billing. But, I personally think the original team should get an extra credit at the end. But, I think the way they were credited here was very respectful.

@johnvboy my friend, I don't think the discussion of whether someone is a troll or not is worth it with some people. You can be perfectly reasonable, but if you don't share some users opinion or even argue as the devil's advocate you are a troll in their eyes. Even if you're just doing so to stay intellectually honest. I just don't think it's worth it to have the discussion as they probably already think you're a troll yourself so what you're saying is just going in one ear and out the other.

As for my personal opinion... This project is on the level of a remake rather than remaster. I think the team that worked on it deserve top billing. But, I can see how the original devs could feel they still deserve to be credited.

@Kirbysonic I know Shulk gets a lot of love, but I connected a lot with Rex!!! Cannot wait to see Chad King Rex!

@RubyCarbuncle While I understand the sentiment it is apples to oranges to compare the Prime Trilogy release to Prime Remaster. One is a game completely ported to a new console with new textures, lighting engine, models, and a multitude of new control options. I'd agree if this was like Skyward Sword HD where the only real difference was some control tweaks and some spit shine on the textures. This really is a completely different beast. When discussing price we need to compare this to other full remasters on Wii U and Switch and it is cheaper than all the Zelda remasters (Wind Waker, Twilight Princess, Skyward Sword and Link's Awakening), Xenoblade Definitive Edition, Crisis Core Reunion, Final Fantasy XII Zodiac, Shin Megami Tensei 3 and other similar remasters. This is a far fairer price.

I'm not saying it's not okay to be disappointed, but this is a rather quality remaster at a very reasonable price point.

@Ventilator I mean Trilogy was a similar price when it came out... but at the same time we have to consider that Prime Trilogy was not that much of an overhaul of either Prime 1 or 2. They implemented a new control scheme, but that is not even close to the undertaking Prime Remaster was. That is like being upset that Zelda OoT 3D did not include Majora's Mask as well in a single package as the Zelda Collection on the Cube had both. It's apples to oranges.

I have a feeling like much like how Wind Waker HD was so the Zelda team could practice on HD consoles, Prime Remaster was a testbed for the devs at Retro. I mean a lot of the original dev team has moved on and while they hired a lot of pros from other studios they needed a place for the team to cut their teeth again at a 3D Metroidvania.

@Crono1973 once again... Not really. I've maybe bought a few season passes on Switch (Xenoblade 2/3, Mario Kart 8 and Pokemon Sword and Shield), outside of that I haven't. I'm more just annoyed about how some publishers chop up the game and sell it to me piecemeal rather than just increase the price of the base game and put everything in (even if they update in more content later for free like Splatoon did). I'm fine if the price goes up for a game and all these predatory practices went the way of the dodo, but as I've said previously that's not going to happen as publishers are greedy and well so are consumers. You've more or less said that you'd rather have a substandard experience sold to you at $60 than what the developers full vision is at $100.

@Crono1973 not really. I'd gladly pay $100 if it meant the game was stable, it does not have season passes/battle passes, lootboxes and other nonsensical practices. I've said this in other comments that we're paying the same price for a game when development costs were maxed at $6 million USD now it is over $80 million... Yet prices have stayed the same. Now, I'm not going to be overly thrilled if the standard price of a game was $100, but if devs were more honest with the cost of their game and not chop it up in a bs pricing scheme (Ubisoft, EA, Activision, Square Enix I'm looking at you four) then I 'd probably be less annoyed with AAA games than I have been the last 5 years.

While I have zero plans to buy a PS5 (the last hold out for me getting a new PlayStation was God of War, but with their games coming to PC I have less incentive), but glad it's in stock for those who want one. I think if I do get a next gen console it be a Series S with Gamepass so I can play 360, Xbone games that never made it to PC or Switch.

@WiltonRoots I'm not one to argue I want to pay more for a game.. but this really is not the hill to die on. If you don't want to buy it at $70 wait till the price drops, a sale or get it second hand later. Buying games at launch is a luxury expense. That and the people saying "well inflation does not matter blah, blah" people bring it up because games in the 90s costed more not just because of inflation, but because they just were more expensive.

So, either way it really does not matter and I doubt this will harm Zelda's sales.

@ChakraStomps I'm all for season passes if the content is genuinely good and the base game is already exceptional. I'm talking Xenoblade 2 (Torna was like an entire extra game), Smash Ultimate, Mario Kart 8 Delux... but for the most part Season Passes are just filler with no killer which will get bundled in later with a "Game of the Year" Edition anyways... if we are specifically talking Battle Passes like found in Fortnight and other "live services"... yes... I want that practice gone next to the Online Pass in the forgotten graveyard of death. Why is it Splatoon 2&3 keep rolling out free updates years after release with quality content, yet Epic and Blizzard nickel and dime the consumer with those nonsense passes.

@Kirgo This right here:

"The elephant in the room, to me, seems to be the industry is highly profitable, even without price increases. This is true on any platform though."

This is something I very much agree with! The gaming industry is highly profitable. While logically we can discuss inflation and development cost as legitimate reasons to increase the cost to $70 (I even wrote an entire post detailing how we are on average paying less for a game now than back in 2006 by an average of $20. Post #155). But, the game industry itself is caught in an ouroboros. We demand higher and higher graphical fidelity which cranks the cost of development where publishers then charge outrages prices for DLC, micro-transactions and freemium experiences and are rewarded for it... then gamers complain and the cycle continues because they buy it in droves anyways.

The reason a lot of these practices exist is due to THQ (not THQ Nordic the original THQ) which to compete with Activision, EA, Ubisoft and others cranked out AAA experiences at ballooned development costs and to recapture that cost implemented season passes, microtransactions and "online passes" (thank Mario that practice is dead and in the trash). Yet despite those practices still went under due to the weight of their own dept. Yet, completely viable companies latched onto those practices and milked them for all their worth. Some for legitimate reasons and others just out of pure greed.

If developers back in 2006-2014 were just honest and increased the price of games to help offset the cost we'd probably have less of these practices. But, even then this is why even increasing the cost now will not offset those practices because it is too little too late. Even at $70USD developers are still making less on each game sold then they would had back during the 360/PS3-era. So, even then it won't make much of a difference outside to just offset maybe the production cost of the physical game rather than development.

So, yeah... I agree. The elephant in this room is still very much so there despite the very logical and reasonable reasons a game now-a-days should be $70... yet even then I'd argue a new AAA game should be $90 and should come with the season pass as free updates. But, now I just sound crazy and I'd rather not give EA and Ubisoft ideas.

@Rascal0302 I've sure I've gotten a fair amount of people calling me a Nintendo-shill over the years... but is a take where I will put my foot down and just call bad.

Hardware power does equate the quality of a product. If that was the case Ryse: Son of Rome and The Order 1886 would be classified as gaming classics... which they're not. Rather they're remembered as vapid and boring experiences despite still being gorgeously realistic looking games that still marvel today visually.

The thing is we know barely anything about TotK and it could be double the size of BotW and fix all the legitimate issues that game had (the progression and dungeon issues). If it does that then I'm sure even naysayers will pay $70 (which is unconfirmed). But, the crux of the issue I have with this comment is price of a game should never be pinned to how good a game looks as you will miss out on some amazing games for the sake of some bland and dull "AAA 4K" experience...

@johnvboy I know and if you dare having a difference of opinion "you're a troll." But, as I did state in my post there are people who do have legitimate grievances if the price is real and they're already struggling. But, I mean just like how going to the cinema is luxury so is gaming. They should get their house in order first before looking at buying a game at launch.

@nocdaes I think for a lot of people it is more an emotional argument. The classic "how dare the man make this thing I enjoy more expensive! It has been this price for a long time, it should be this way always!" The man yells at tree argument I like to call it. But, @SonOfDracula does have a point. In some major cities like LA, New York, London even small cities like Toronto cost of living has been nasty for people trying to make ends meat for a decade now ($2000-3000 a months rent in New York City is not uncommon). But, then again cost of living has not gone that far up in more suburban areas and rural areas. It has hit the urban folk quite hard! The obvious answer would be to move out of those areas, but that is easier said than done for most folks.

So, while we can look at this logically and go $10 is not that much of a leap and in the grand scheme of things it's not. But, I can see for those already struggling to remain in the hobby this extra step can be what pushes people out if they already are in some of these areas.

But, for everyone else who is just mad for the sake of being mad to maintain the status-quo... those are the ones that could use the ice cold bucket of water that is gaming is at the cheapest it has ever been on a consumer level.

@Rykdrew I think that is fair. For me it is more time commitment. Can I justify spending $60/$70 when I need to also maintain family commitments, my job, and my other hobbies. I find as I've gotten older I just can't justify that the same way I could in my 20s where staying up till 4am to eek out that final dungeon was justifiable with my low life commitments.

I find Zelda, Pokemon and others more like comfort food. They bring me back to a time where things were simpler and my life was not as hectic. But, I can also see it the other way with people who want to unwind with new experiences. It's all good.

But, man $20 for Elden Ring that is a steel and I'm impressed by your thrifting skills on that one.

@Rykdrew kinda jealous to be honest! I'm all for supporting devs, but when someone is practically giving away an awesome game for $20 bones I'm biting down on that deal!

I mean I'm all for paying $70 for a game, but a deal is a deal.

@Divide_and_Wander I was just a touch too young to remember buying games in the 1990s (I do remember them being rather expensive). I inherited a large collection of Nintendo Power magazines and I remember flipping through older issues gawking at the cost of some of these games... gaming in the 1990s was not cheap when you consider the buying power of $60 back then and the general lower minimum wage (anywhere between $3.80 to $5.15 USD) so I tip my hat to you kids who slaved away to afford those games back then.

@Audiogore0733 It could just had been a glitch as Nintendo has not confirmed the $70 price point. But, based on how inflation and cost of development has gone up the past 30 years... games should had gone from $60USD to $70USD over a decade ago. The fact game prices have stayed the same for this long (and actually gone down from where they were on the, SNES and N64 where a game being $70 was rather normal) is bonkers. I mean a new copy of Shaq Fu was $64.99 at launch in 1990s money... Shaq Fu? I feel bad for 90s kids.

Source: https://i.redd.it/k5n5p1pbkmn01.png

@SonOfDracula It is no conspiracy really. Developers and publishers have been wanting to increase the cost of a new AAA game for over a decade. There has been general discussion of this in the games media since 2014. But, actual developers have been discussing this since the late-00s when game development cost ballooned with the HD twins.

Now, I'm not advocating that games get more expensive to buy... but we've seen publishers use increasingly more drastic practices to recover that development cost... so... this should had happened over a decade ago if I'm being honest.

Reading some of these comments makes me want to moan. Games have never been cheaper! As $60 USD is not the same as $60 USD in the mid-00s or even $60 in the 90s. Games were far more expensive in the 1990s. The equivalent of spending $60 USD in 2006 is the same as spending $88.33 USD today. To put that in further perspective spending $60 USD 1990 is the same as spending $136.25 USD today. So, to put that in further perspective spending $70 USD today is cheaper than spending $60 USD in 2006. And might I remind people salaries were also lower at those times too as the average personal income in the US in 2023 is $63,214 USD, the average income in 2006 was $59,600 USD and $50,200 USD in 1990. So, the average salary has gone up year after year in the US, yet game prices have stayed the same.

Making games have gotten more and more expensive (about $1-6 million USD in 2006, yet it is over $80 million USD in 2023 to make a AAA video game), yet the actual price of games has stayed the same. People wonder why companies have used insane DLC practices and live services that is why. Now, some companies are just straight greedy, there is no denying that. But, the expectation that games will always cost $60 USD is in itself insane.

Will this mean I spend less on games? Probably as inflation has infected every part of our daily lives. But, in general I've spent less on games year after year as I've gotten older in general. Those having a temper tantrum because the new Zelda might, and I repeat might, be $70 USD need some perspective.

@Ryu_Niiyama as a longtime Fire Emblem fan I like it when people point out the marriage mechanic was found in Genealogy of the Holy War all the way back on the Super Famicom. It's a cool mechanic and I liked how Awakening implemented it. I do wish that Fates cut it though... It makes sense in Genealogy and Awakening (one because of a time skip and the other had time travel).

Though as someone who liked pairing Severa and Owain it was cool to see them interacting with thier own kids in Fates.

I went Cordelia. It made the most sense from a male Robin's perspective. She's loyal, intelligent and willing to sacrifice herself for Chrom, but has a deep shame about not fulfilling her promise to her comrades. It's a very complex relationship and I like how Severa fits into the dynamic as her misery is directly because of her father. That and with Robin being the one who killed Cordelia in the future it is both tragic that the one who helped her get past her trauma was also the one who killed her when she protected Chrom the other man she loved.

So overall that's who I picked. I just liked the meta narrative.

While I'd be down for a sequel and it seems Platinum's plate is now clear with Babylon's Fall mercifully put out of it's misery, and the only major projects they're working on is Astral Chain 2 and Granblue... But this is Konami... Odds are good it's a remaster for PS5 and Switch. The PC might get a 4k remaster... So I'm prepared for disappointment

@Selim for figures that is the going rate. Most of them are made in small batches between 200-20,000 and they tend to get 1-2 print runs. That and the figures are disgustingly detailed. I do agree that the price is high, but that is the going rate for most figures.

I'm going to go a bit into my views as to what makes a good single player for fighting games. The best ones are the ones that teach you how to play the game. Think the old arcade ladders in Capcom games where each fight gets increasingly harder. Those are decent. I think the modern Mortal Kombat games have done an amazing job at teaching players how to play while presenting a great story and cycles through each character regularly so you are sampling most of the cast and learning what makes them tick. The best way to learn how to fight a character is to learn how to fight with that character. So, not only are they challenging and teach you how to play, but they also allow you to figure out who your main will be while engaging you with the unique mechanics of each fighter.

Subspace since it was a side scroller which controls like a fighter it never feels good to play. It's clunky and the platforming is never all that challenging and rather just tedious. And since you're not actually engaging with the mechanics of a fighting game your not learning how to actually play. That and when you're in an arena they are brief appearances and a lot of the bosses are not playable characters so you're learning how to fight an enemy you'll never face online or your buddies can pick. So as far as a fighter single player mode it lands flat. It's not good enough to be enjoyed as just a side scroller on it's own or a good enough mode to teach casuals how to get good at the fighting game part of the fighting game.

It's basically just fanservice. And Smash is fanservice so that's not a bad thing, just not ideal. Compare that to Melee where yes Adventure mode had platforming, but those were few and far between and more just broke-up the fights. That and All-Star mode was a nice gauntlet you could do to test your skills, plus the game had a unique challenge mode. Melee actually did a good job of teaching players how to play through it's single player content.

So yeah... That's why Subspace was not a good single player mode on its own. That is unless you like fanservice in that case you're probably going to have fun... But, that's really all it was as it was not a good side scroller or a good fighter as far as a mode on its own.

I'm going to say no. I think while a nice Single Player mode, it was not very good. It was a pretty mediocre platformer and a decent addition. I think the cinematics were AWESOME, but the actual mode is a big wet meh. I like how Smash Ultimate handled unlocking characters, but I'd rather it be like Street Fighter, Killer Instinct and other fighters where everyone was just there at boot up.

Maybe if they improved Subspace then maybe I would not mind it... But I'd rather Melee's Adventure or All Star modes.

EDIT: seriously people should go back and replay it was a critical lens and compare it to Kirby, Mario and other platformers. It's not very good. As a pack-in with a fighter it's pretty decent, but compared Mortal Kombat's singleplayer offerings Subspace hardly compares.

Nintendo has been doing their own thing for years. So if they skip the show and just do their Summer Direct + Treehouse steam no major loss. Microsoft with owning Bethesda and soon Activision Blizzard really can do their own thing as well. Sony is a bit more surprising... But, not unexpected either.

@OrtadragoonX I think it depends on the titles. Nintendo and Rare titles have aged extremely well, and for 3rd parties most Factor 5 and Hudson Soft games still play excellently!! Without the experimentation of the N64 we'd probably not have the excellent titles of the 6th generation (which still struggled with camera controls till rather late in the generation).

The PSOne RPGs and 2D Sprite game have aged well, but a lot of it's catalog had aged just as bad if not worse in some cases because of the lack of analog controls early one. Go play the original Tomb Raider, MediEvil, Resident Evil, Silent Hill or Spyro... They've for the most part aged like milk.

@johnvboy I know we've bounced back and forth, but I don't think I've ever given my VC experience. I loved VC on Wii! I got into retro gaming around that time back when Game Trailers and Screwattack were a thing (I miss Stuttering Craig's Top 10s). Great time playing absolute banger classics!!! But, on Wii U the bubble popped for me. It was just not as exciting to see what was released because I already had access to the games I wanted in Wii mode, and as an adult it was harder to decide if I wanted to spend $6-15 on a game that might have aged very badly rather than just save that pocket change for a new Wii U or PS4 game. I like NSO because it gives me more incentive to play games I would had probably skipped and I need it for my Splatoon and Pokemon fix so it's easy to justify having it and not having to rebuy Super Mario World or Super Metroid for the third time (or in some cases 4 times because 3DS and Wii U did not have unified accounts) in 10 years just to play them when I have down time. That and it's nice to see Nintendo take risks with games like Starfox 2 and Earthbound Beginnings (Zero) which I first heard about when I was 15 on old 16-Bit Gems and Hard4Games videos.

I can see though that if you're single player only and don't want to pay for NSO even for stuff like Pokemon that's fair. I can see why you'd prefer and option to buy these games instead. But, with how robust the catalog had gotten I think it's easy to justify paying what amounts to a couple cups of coffee (or a fancy Starbucks coffee) a month to have access to Golden Eye and Banjo.

To each their own and that has been my TedTalk.

@AgtOrange but that misses the point of the service. It's to allow people to play the games as they originally were with some modern clean up and online. They don't change the game itself in how it plays. And you can setup Golden Eye to play like a modern shooter by selecting 1.2 in the control settings and add a profile for your Switch control in settings. A bit of legwork, but you can remap the controls. That and the game is best played with an N64 controller as that was what it was designed for.

I've played games with my brother for years and we get super competitive. We have yelled at each other over a round of Smash and Mario Kart. I've played games with my partner and while I try to quell this demon... They figure it out and we go back to reading and other activities... I'm a monster too!

@ModdedInkling it runs better mostly because Microsoft has a better console and are tweaking the game a bit more. Nintendo's is a straight emulation without tweaks and are not running a custom emulator for the game just the standard NSO one. Which to be fair to Nintendo they are constantly improving the emulator and are trying to produce a version closer to the N64 original. Microsoft is releasing a slightly more modern version (better controls ect.). It's just the devil in the details. If you prefer a slightly smoother and modern experience go Xbox, if you want online and a closer to the og version go Nintendo.

@electrolite77 neither do I friend. I think a lot of it is either misconception about how NSO works (like this idea that you have to be always online to play these games) and a combination of bitterness over there no longer being VC and the idea of "ownership." I think most of those are a little silly to still be bitter over almost 6 years later (especially with digital ownership discussion. I eye roll just as much with the physical or die crowd, yet they are right digital ownership is not really a thing)... But that's life. This isn't politics it's gaming, no need to get so bent out of shape over how people choose to spend their money and enjoyment if it's not hurting anyone.

Well my TedTalk is over, see you next month when this exact same thing happens with the next N64 game.

@nocdaes it's mostly just sad honestly. It's like having the fun police come in and say "you playing NSO? You've been scammed" with the straightest face ignoring what the meaning of the word is. NSO is a nice service, it can be better, but it's a nice service that does what it says on the tin. I would enjoy some QOL improvements and a few gems still missing, but overall it's a nice way to unwind.

@electrolite77 it's the mentality of "I don't like it so you shouldn't either" which for some reason is the worst in the gaming space. If people are looking forward to something awesome! If you're not move on and do the things that make you happy. Life is too short to hold onto so much negativity.

@GameOtaku that's not what I'm talking about. How about addressing what I'm actually talking about then "drip feed" and the vague "companies do better" line. That's not what I'm talking about and you're just arguing past me and arguing with a strawman not actually talking with me. I never said VC was a bad idea in principal and I'm glad it's gone or I even think Switch Online is perfect. What I'm saying is how VC is highly romanticized and not actually discussed in context of what it actually was.

If you want something we agree on... I agree that Nintendo should offer the chance to buy a digital copy with the game being available with Switch Online. I agree that publishers should try harder to keep their back catalog available especially obscure stuff like Terranigma and Ogre Battle 64. Cool. Now we can have discussions about what I'm actually talking about.

@GameOtaku but you're completely misrepresentationing what I've said. I'm not saying NSO is perfect, rather I'm saying VC was exceptionally flawed and despite not having it we do live in a golden era for retro game accessibility. Then you started arguing with me about how certain collections don't have as many games as you want despite them being exceptionally more affordable than VC was. While at the same time you're wondering why Nintendo doesn't just make the 700 NES game library available when you and I both know that's not how this works due to how probably at the very least 50% of those games are in some legal quagmire. It's just a circular discussion. I'm not arguing a fallacy you're nitpicking details and ignoring 90% of what I'm saying trying to get me in a "gotcha" when you haven't.

I'm not sure what you think I've been saying, but you seem to be arguing against what I'm not actually saying.

EDIT: and I don't want to have the discussion about "ownership" of digit goods... Because that is a semantic argument that is a nightmare to have. In short if it's VC or Switch Online you're renting both in some way shape or form. So, don't argue with me there because it's one I don't want to have and if I'm annoyed now, I don't want to get short there. Reason I'm bringing it up is because if someone is pro "ownership" most of these collections are 100% better than VC was in that regard as they tend to get a physical package at some point. This is why I've not talked about "renting v. owning" because it's a silly argument to have in this context because it becomes bogged down nonsense.

@GameOtaku so you're sour grapes over Legends not being included? Kk sounds good mate. That and the logistics of what you want is impossible. You can't have every game ever made available at all time.

@GameOtaku so what's the issue with Drac X an obscure and expensive game being included in the Advance Collection?

@GameOtaku And it was a nice inclusion as they probably want to save Rondo for when they release a Symphony collection or with the DS games. So Dracula X is a nice bonus for a mostly GBA game collection to help round it out. And they probably don't want to charge $50 for a Castlevania collection so they had to cut some games.

@Mgalens I think that is a very fair rant. I have zero issues with VC in principal. I just think it's important to keep its flaws in perspective when discussing it as... It had a lot of them. Same with Switch Online. But, once again it's all keeping perspective.