For what its worth to OP you might want to look at what laws apply in your area. Many countries may indeed be okay with you downloading a song you already own (as per transiet punk) BUT be against you breaking copyright protection (decrypting it).

Interesting but I do think things are a little different:

• A lot of people seem to be commenting about how a remaster is about changing atmosphere or visual changes. And I agree with you. But OP is asking specifically about games with the quote “for modern audiences” in the game and that quote is not added for the visual or control or minor game design changes, but instead specifically to tell you it’s removed the “isms” out.

• I think your point about isms makes sense, it’s just that I’m of the opposing view. That I think the “isms” have been removed out is like censoring a painting or movie. Sure it’s easier to digest, but what made the media so poignant is sometimes the rawity of it.

I guess I don’t think you’re wrong, just that I think it takes away from the original media for the only reason that “it sells more if we can widen the audience”.

For me the ideal would be you could choose between the two. How the game was originally made but with the updated graphics/control/design. Or the new one that removes any isms to placate people’s sensibilities.

I don’t think however my preference would happen because it goes against the idea of “hay we can sell more if we tell everyone we removed everything controversial about the game”. So I guess your idea solution is probably the best middle ground :)

Definitely for me big alarm bells.

Look a remaster should or could have obvious upgrades, sometimes it’s visuals, videos, style, controls etc. that to me is good.

But that quote specifically tells me “the game has been changed for current day sensibilities” and I hate that. I feel it takes away from what the original had in mind, for good or bad.

I understand that many media have been racist/misogynist/ageist and accept that it was a product of its time. But I don’t think it does it any good to essentially pretend that it didn’t happen and I feel we’re just pretending it isn’t what it truly is when it’s changed.

I do think remakes are different however. I feel they are taking the idea of the original but redesigning it in a way that the new designers for see.

BUT the fact is, that quote is only ever seen on media that hides the past, not remakes the future.

I would return 5 Skyrim remakes for just 1 remake of oblivion or Morrowing. Does a great disservice that those games a regulated to past consoles.

The best debugger is a good night sleep.

I wish I could choose size of font, so many games have a font that only works on certain TVs or played in handheld mode.

Also I wish we could all align in settings menu at some point, so I’m not hunting down these weird unexpected settings.

There’s a lot of different views, many with some truths to it. I’ll try to give an answer but please take into account my answer is quite bias too.

The question, unlike the title of the article, the actual vote is on

whether the Constitution should be changed to include a recognition of the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.

The problem is, how exactly or what exactly is an Aboriginal/Torres strait Islander voice. It’s not like Australia is voting to not give these groups voting rights like many articles seem to suggest.

It’s about what does this voice mean, do they have the power over government, can they stop laws, does it even help, whose even in it?

And there is no answer real answer, most answers I see are “it’s about creating a voice” or “we want to see Aus support before putting into action” etc (this may have changed later but that was the initial info I was getting), so you basically asked the Australian people to vote into changing the consitution on a potential something? Which for many feels like a permanent change or an unknown thing.

So all the no side had to do was be like “oh if you don’t know, then best to err on the safe side and vote no”. “Who knows what this could do”. “You can always wait and change it later”.

Imo the votes would have been very different if it instead just asked “would you like to see an Aboriginal / Torres strait Islander voice in government” and not touched the constitution. Or if they just made the voice/team/group and showed Aus how helpful it was before asking them to change the consitution.

And (I’m prob showing more bias here) if the yes side didn’t just call everyone racist who looked at the no vote (which I believe many are swing voters), it couldve provided enough time/listening to make changes to the argument that would change the voters. For example if they made it clear that it would just be used to support better decision making and help understanding etc. Though I can’t be too harsh when many of the no side arguments felt objectively like lies.

Lol That’s awesome, less of a workaround and more of a “we fixed it already, but whatever you’re using probably hasn’t caught up yet”.

Yes, that’s why we should always call it out in all forms about how any person of authority can extort people and the importance in ensuring it doesn’t happen.

Eh, for me, it has story and apparently I can romance people and shoot stuff. So it’s already up there for me. But can totally see how people will feel different. Especially if you felt any hype for this. Me however has had no hype for Bethesda games after fallout 76

Wow thats a shame. I imagine there is so many cutural and historical languages there, it would be sad if they were lost to history.