Console games are stuck on their hardware though, even if they work they're still all second hand while a PC with a way to play older games will be preserved more easily.
Though even this is not perfect either. Especially if it's a PC game that required an install code from the box or piece of paper inside of it, and you're only allowed either one or three times at best to try installing it (or required activating via a website that does not exist anymore[Dragon Age Origins]). Outside of piracy, and maybe Steam (if they were on there in the first place) there is no way to preserve those games from the mid or late 2000s. Meaning sometimes the console version is the only way to go. Or the PC version gets removed due to copyright infighting between two different companies. AKA, Wolfenstein (2009).
I should have precised that piracy is to be taken into account.
You actually made it clear the first time around, I was just pointing out the issues, outside of piracy, or even when piracy can't save a game. Then there is also the change in hardware/software, where even with piracy, a PC game can't or won't run properly, and/or constantly crash (FEAR does this no matter if you buy it legit or not) because the hardware is too new now (with the old game relying heavily on the old hardware), or you have to take a bunch of extra steps in making the damn thing work.
Everyone has their personal preferences, but I prefer my emulation devices. Though the laptop I mainly use for MAME and specific PS1 games.
I know that for FEAR or even Max Payne you'll have to download patches to make it work properly but I'd argue that it's part of PC gaming's DNA to tinker your game around.
That's the major problem: most people don't want to even bother tinkering with everything just get the game to work. I am glad patches or fan patches exist, but it should not take all of that. Especially when consoles have the pop in play aspects. At least most old consoles anyway, but the smaller the game that is already polished, the less you have to wait for updates or download patches to play. Also, those fan patches took time or years, and weren't instant fixes. Not everyone has the patience for all those. I've still met and known plenty of people who'd rather just get the console versions and pop it in, even if they the installation takes some time, because of patch updates. At this point, it boils down to personal preference and what is worth waiting for. Which is what it has always been anyway.
Most people don't help themselves, what can I do? It's also not my problem if people paid for cloud gaming or if they'd rather spend money in microtransactions and GaaS than a one-time paid game either.
Everyone has different patience and skill levels. You can explain and show it to many the easiest and non-complex way possible, and most would just rather get the console version, or wait for the remake and/or remaster. That's life, and I see no point in getting mad at people or looking down on them for it. Also, let's not got into too many assumptions. There are people who are sick of Gaas, or don't like microtransactions. Or will wait for the complete version/upgraded version to come out at a cheaper price. As we've seen with Sega and their Persona and Yakuza games. Which was Sega fucking themselves over hard.
Yes, and yet most console players would still rather just pop the game in, wait for it to install, and then play without having to do any tinkering at all. Now that. Is. IRONNYYYYY!!!
Updated re-releases should never remove features...
Another thing: I really wish SFVI brought back the transition stages, or knock out stages from SFV. Where if you KO an opponent in either corner of the screen, something humiliating would happen to them. They're basically stage fatalities without the blood and gore, but are done entertainingly or look painful enough, they go into funny awesomeness.
This shouldn't even be a hot take at this point and most games do this now anyway. If anyone has a problem with it, there are people who just hate things just to be hating or hate anyone that's disabled in some capacity. Unfortunately, this is true, but i've noticed it's nothing more, bt the usual, loud people engaging on places like youtube and twitter and never know when to shut up. The fact that these features still keep showing up in games no matter the budget or size shows developers do care, and at least most of them have the sense to ignore the rift raft.
This.
99% of the NES/FamiCom library is bad, the only consistently decent genre on the NES is RPGs, highlights being the Final Fantasy games and Megami Tensei 2.
I'd argue that platformers were the highlight of the 8-bits era when many RPGs were clunky or just not that interesting to follow the story due to the lack of space.
My knowledge of NES platformers is kinda limited but from what I played my favorites came out to be Super Mario Bros. 2 and 3.
There were a ton of platformers (as they were usually easy to develop) and even really good ones in the late life of the console.
For me RPGs peaked in the PS2 era
PS2 RPGs were really good (albeit sometimes too cinema-like).
That's really not a hot take. Most go with either PS1 or PS2. If not those, then the Sega Saturn.
Sega Genesis and Dreamcast says hello
. Not their fault, they didn't jive with you. Sega Saturn was a great console and 2d powerhouse, but was marketed horribly outside of Japan with the stupid, "no 2d games" rule from that fool, Sega decided to hire after he got fired from Sony.
That wasn't the hot take of mine, the hot take was earlier, and I said that the vast majority of the NES library is frankly trash.
