Well, I see your problem here.

You're on Discord.

A remake should always try to stay as close as possible to the original for its initial presentation. The intention of a remake is to become the current market replacement of an old product, for various reasons.

Reading your comment, it seems like you're locked onto the idea that all remasters are lazy, low quality cash grabs and that remakes should actually just be high quality remasters.

It sounds like you wanted a high quality remaster of Silent Hill 2, and instead they gave you a remake and never released a digital version of the original. So now everyone's playing the remake and calling it Silent Hill 2, instead of properly differentiating it as Silent Hill 2 Remake/Silent Hill 2 (2025).

And I agree that the situation is ass for navigating online conversations.

But a remake should not "stay as close as possible to the original". That's what remasters are for.

The only thing they should do is be good.

(And also release the originals DRM-free on GOG.)

The only games I 100% are the ones where llooking for weird secrets is still fun.

If it's just "collect all 2 million Pokémon because... you get an achievement", I'm out.

Remasters and remakes are two different things.

A remaster is what you describe - technical improvements such as graphics and framerate.

Remakes are (supposed to be) additive - improving the story, changing un-fun mechanics, implementing new stuff that still fits the themes of the game (or that they originally wanted to include, but couldn't due to budget or time or publishing constraints).

If you're looking through nostalgia lens, yea, a remaster is all you need. But, when it's not a studio just looking for a cash grab, devs can have plenty of reasons for wanting a second crack at their game.

FF7 Remake is a great example. Sure, there's been a lot of controversy around the changes. But I've really enjoyed a lot of them because it's different from the original. It didn't ruin the discussion - it added to the conversation.

I still haven't gotten into this series, because it feels like there's so much homework you have to do before you can play specific titles.

My second run through, I knew what I needed to buy vs what I could come back for later.

Didn't need to farm rosaries until the end of Act 2, when it was easy because of the tall bugs outside the gay robot boss room.

Is the argument that it's okay for states to have a monopoly on violence as long as they're consistent about it?

I'm not sure I want that, either.

You can consistently do the wrong thing.

You gotta throw in the /s

Tone doesn't carry well over text.

I agree.

Halloween is the context.
I said it was fine without context.

As in, on a normal day where people are not trick or treating (and therefore expecting candy)... it's fine.

As long as they wash their hands first.

State violence is there to enforce rules, conquer territory or achieve political goals. Terrorism is there to create fear.

Many terrorist attacks were and are part of a campaign with explicit political goals, often including taking territory.

• The IRA's political goal was to remove northern Ireland from the UK
• The Taliban's political goal was to enforce a strict interpretation of Sharia law
• Hamas wanted to establish a Palestinian state

We just don't call these behaviors terrorist attacks when they're perpetrated by a state.

• Russia's bombings of Ukraine
• Israel's violations of the Geneva convention in the Gaza strip.
• The United States' air strikes on Venezuelan ships

I'm not advocating for violence by anyone, but your argument buys wholesale into every state's argument for why they should get to have a monopoly on it.

When a non-state actor does it, we call it "terrorism". When a state does it, we call it "state violence".

But the killing is the same. The desire to strike fear into opponents is the same. The goals are the same: to get power and control, or to keep it.

"Terrorism" is a word used and abused by state actors against smaller non-state actors, so that they can destroy it without having to negotiate (and possibly give concessions).

Trump is trying this now with Venezuela. If it's a corrupt government, you still have to engage in diplomacy. If it's a cartel, you have carte blanche to air strike Venezuelan ships.

The Taliban succeeded and now control the state of Afghanistan. Now that they're a state actor, violence against civilians has not stopped, we just stopped calling it terrorism and seeing it in the news.

Can someone explain?

Signal CEO Whittaker said that in the worst case scenario, they would work with partners and the community to see if they could find ways to circumvent these rules. Signal also did this when the app was blocked in Russia or Iran. "But ultimately, we would leave the market before we had to comply with dangerous laws like these."

This is why we need the ability to sideload apps.