McDonald's doesn't have to use tax loopholes or offshore havens to avoid taking financial responsibility for a privately own restaurant that happens to have McDonald's written on the roof. They only directly own and operate 15% of the ones in the country, so the billions in revenue and the millions their upper level corporate officers make only applies to this stores. All of the other ones are franchised and payroll and hiring is managed no different for any other small business. Cars. Mexico has been the go to place for the automotive industry to build US market cars that have margins too thin to build in America.
The United States would have to lead basically any initiative to force Mexico to stop being so... Mexico-like, and I don't think there is any chance of that happening in the near future. First of all, the US would have to give a shit collectively, and I'm not entirely sure that even the illegal immigrants coming here to support their families in Mexico actually care about Mexico itself; but more importantly it would have to make a massive expenditure of time, money and resources (one that would almost certainly be heavily criticized internationally) to do something that has little perceived value for the US to undertake but plenty to lose from doing.
Why should the US prepare to lose their practically infinite cheap labor source under NAFTA when its easier to just let the country rot and reap the benefits? Why should the US purposely damage the fragile ecosystem that illegal immigrants have built for some businesses (especially agricultural) when it's easier to just do limp-wristed and token efforts towards deporting people every once in a while instead and a lot less damaging? Why should the US dump a ton of money and political capital into Mexico when it would be far more useful from a voter popularity standpoint to spend it domestically? You'll even get the fringe (but as Trump has shown, only fringe when it comes to actually expressing them) notions, like why not just cooperate with Mexico to kill the drug cartels like America did in the 1980s with Colombia? Any politician who proposes such a push is going to have to answer those questions, but I don't think any politician in ~2015 would be able to answer those questions. No Republican would even even bring up the topic in the first place, and I don't think there is currently a Democrat with enough clout to even propose it. Hilary in 2008, maybe.
You didn't. I did. I did so to make a specific point of comparison between the two games.
See, here's your post:
And here is where it was first brought up: I do have a second account on SSMB, but it's not named "Diesel"; so your still continued insistence on the supposed real reason I brought up two different games that happened to be in the same series simply gets more and more meaningless. Along those lines: As shown above, you said nothing about Spyro 1 either, so you can take your high horse right the fuck off this forum. The only reason Spyro 3's release is irrelevant is because it's more convenient for you to claim it is, but you're going to have to have a better basis for doing so than "I didn't bring it up so it doesn't have to be discussed". That ship sailed when you didn't bring up Spyro 1 either, but then proceeded to debate it so much that you eventually claimed you started the discussion in the first place.
With that out of the way, it's also laughable that you keep insisting that Spyro 3 can't be compared in any way Sonic Adventure just because you didn't personally bring it up. The game came out fucking 13 months after Adventure International. The time between Spyro 3 and Adventure International is almost identical to the time between Spyro 1 and Adventure International. YotD was still explicitly a contemporary game to Adventure, just like Donkey Kong 64 was. Just like Banjo Tooie was. Just like Toy Story 2 was. Just like everything at the time that was (and has continued to be since) compared directly to the Mario game that came out in 1996, all the way up to when the heavy hitters on the Gamecube and PS2 started landing in 2002. Are you going to now claim that the journalistic standards of game reviewers changed so drastically in those 13 months that none of them can be compared either? What's the exact cutoff date between "hopelessly naive period reviewers" and "intelligent and cultured modern reviewers"?
Which they did, and you were already told: The reason I didn't go into detail with the first game rerelease was because of that part at the end: And the reason I went into detail with Spyro 3 was because I knew exactly what they fixed for that rerelease. This isn't hard. I shouldn't have to directly quote what was said to you. I certainly shouldn't have to quote what you said to show what you said.
Two things: Simply repeating things over and over again doesn't make them more true. You need to add the word hypocrisy to that list of words you need to learn definitions for if you think it applies in this context.It's impossible to provide evidence for claims if you dismiss anything that goes against your worldview as evidence simply because it does so; or outright ignore it like you've blatantly been doing half the time anyway.And since you've even gone so far to say this: After spending your entire time demanding reviews and claiming nothing else (not reviews, not technical breakdowns, not contemporary comparisons, not modern retrospectives that explicitly comment on the game enjoyment after all these years and how it is hurt by shitty port jobs) was worth your time because you posted a Metascore intentionally divorced from all context and without even a single line from an actual review, and now you're going to even say that that isn't enough?
It's always stuck out to me because of how hard they tried to whitewash what was a dark and fairly compelling story (albeit not executed amazingly) into something that was A-OK for people half the age the original story was targeted at. The dub was even worse, but it was just more damage to something that was already pretty screwed up. Plus the rather odd decision to adapt a game that served as an introduction to two of the main characters 30 odd episodes into the show, but I think at that point Sonic X's production staff was getting a little desperate. The Adventure adaptation, while similarly scrubbed and sterilized, inherently didn't lose out as bad and actually did a couple nifty things differently for storytelling purposes rather than simply because they were forced to.
It's too bad this is just your opinion and everything, right? Otherwise you would have been able to provide some sort of independent clarification and it might have meant something different than the half dozen other times that you similarly insisted it was true.
These statements: Were not presented as simply being your opinion. In one particular case, you presented the apparent universal loathing of the game as being a tautology: There is absolutely no context that that statement can be considered "just my opinion". Furthermore, you attempted to justify the above assertions of fact multiple times, and went so far as to claim that the original positive opinions and any current positive opinions of the game were not valid because the future opinions of the game from journalists were more negative with each rerelease and that the newer journalist opinions must be inherently more correct. And now you are once again backpedaling to get away from a definitive statement that you originally made.
So if Sonic Adventure always being bad was nothing more than your opinion, and you therefore have to do nothing to support it, than you have nothing else to contribute to the conversation about it always being bad.
That's fantastic. I was still using them specifically to describe how they were rereleased compared to the different way Sonic Adventure was, and you were still responding to my post; so your different usage of the word "emulation" has nothing to do with how I used it. I don't care. I didn't bring it up in comparison to Adventure in the same context that you were talking about for the other games anyway, nor did I bring it up in the same context that I (not you) brought up the original Spyro title in comparison to Adventure. Nope. Try again. You don't get to dictate how people respond to your posts when you weren't even the one to originally raise the specific subject. Nope, try again. I've actually provided sources for viewpoints and explanations for why Adventure's rereleases can't be directly compared to the rereleases of its contemporaries. You've repeated logical fallacies and gone out of your way to do neither. So if Sonic Adventure always being bad was nothing more than your opinion, and you therefore have to do nothing to support it, than you have nothing else to contribute to the conversation about it always being bad. You didn't do the latter. I personally said nothing of the sort.
What does emulation mean in this specific context: It very clearly doesn't mean "the experience is basically the same." It very clearly is talking about the differences between porting a game to new hardware and emulating a game's original hardware. And since this was the post where you went on a tangent for what emulation means, why do you keep claiming to mean a specific definition that has nothing to do with the post you were responding to?
Except you're still obviously not getting that Year of the Dragon was brought up to compare the circumstances of the subsequent rereleases of that game to the subsequent rereleases of Adventure, and the original Spyro the Dragon was brought up to compare the quality of the original releases. Because you're pulling shit out of your ass, dismissing explanations for no other reason than they don't suit you, trying to misuse word definitions to avoid responding to what was actually said when a word was used and claiming things that are obviously untrue but then refusing to defend why your own authority on the subject should be considered credible over everyone else's experiences.
The burden of proof lies on the one who made the original claim. That was this: This isn't proof of that conclusion: And this isn't proof of that conclusion: And this doesn't even manage to avoid being a fallacy: And the reason that none of those are proof of your initial conclusion have all been explained to you in far greater detail than you've even bothered to acknowledge. So by all means post something that actually is proof of that conclusion.
No it's not. Learn what words mean. It's obvious what you are trying to say (that it emulates the experience of the original game), but that doesn't apply to the original post you were responding to since said post was talking about emulations versus porting in the technical sense; and that you're still trying to weasel out a semantic victory over something that is an obviously false premise in the first place makes your insistence of using words incorrectly all the more odd. No it's not and no I didn't. I said the first Spyro had aged poorly (among other games) from a quality perspective, then went on to talk about a different Spyro title's rerelease procedure compared to Adventure's. Learn to actually read what people are posting before responding. A $6 straight emulation of a PSX game doesn't get as much scrutiny as a badly done but claimed to be definitive enhanced port of a Dreamcast title that cost $15 when it released and is in fact across the board worse than the original Dreamcast release?
Stop the fucking presses. I explained in detail why I brought up Year of the Dragon, and even attached a rider that the same situation also applied (to a presumably lesser extent) to the original game. You dismissed my explanation out of hand, and have attempted multiple times to just claim that because you weren't talking about Year of the Dragon, it holds no relevance to the conversation. You've presented no logic for doing so, and have shown zero evidence of any understanding for why Year of the Dragon was brought up. In fact, your attempt to insist that I was comparing the games in terms of their initial quality instead of the differing contexts of their subsequent rereleases suggests the opposite.
So no, not really. There is crippling irony in you attempting to dismiss things (written by two outlets that actually contribute to Metacritic, no less) that directly contradict what you keep saying when the only evidence of anything you've actually said in this thread is a Metascore. You've provided nothing to contradict the statements from those two sites. You haven't even bothered to link to an actual review of the game, nevermind one by one of those two sites, that specifically outline the claims you're making about the original game never being good. And as I said to you two pages ago, if you're going to try and dismiss reviews from the time the game released as just being from hacks with no standards, you're going to have to put a bit more effort into proving it beyond simply repeatedly insisting that because the Metascores were successively lower, the original reviews must have had it wrong so it must have always been a bad game.