And what costs are involved in the project right now by farming out the porting of a Gamecube game to a newer console that is architecturally nothing more than a really powerful Gamecube? What is a more reasonable undertaking for a game guaranteed to shift at least a million copies a third time around when it currently looks like nothing more than the same game Nintendo has already sold twice rendering at a much higher resolution, if replacing character models is just too much?
The first Bubsy plays like a Sonic game mixed with a later Classicvania title. The levels tend to be far too large, and some of them actually push you towards the end of the ten minute time limit. The level design alternates between passable but bland to occasionally inspired to infuriating (but it usually tends to be more interesting to explore than than Sonic 2), and it's loaded with cheap deaths from enemies and the environment unless you play it meticulously because Bubsy only takes one hit (not really worse than Sonic 2's worst points, mind you, but Sonic 2 gave you rings). Everything you do has momentum (to jump your max height you need to have some horizontal movement, for example) to the point of the game having falling damage, and Bubsy goes really god damned fast, and the only way you can change direction is by gliding mid jump (just trying to change direction without doing so leads you to simply slow your air speed). The physics never really "work" for what the game presents itself as, but they are actually easy to understand and once you realize just how useful the glide is compared to just jumping (it drastically increases how much of your hitbox causes damage to enemies, for example) the game is much easier. The music is actually pretty good and the graphics are decent enough (if rather bland mostly) with detailed spritework, though the SNES version sounds worse but plays a bit better (because you can use the triggers to move the camera forward of your direction while in motion, which can only be done while stationary in the Genny version). Really, the main issue with the first game was just how absolutely shameless of a ripoff it was of Sonic and how much Accolade was attempting to force it to be a legitimate competitor anyway through their obnoxious marketing campaigns as opposed to any real quality deficiencies. It's about as good as the original Jazz Jackrabbit is (and suffers from some similar problems), but it's no Awesome Possum-style disaster. There are a decent amount of fondly remembered platformers from the same time period that were worse when it came to actually playing them.
The second one plays a lot like Sonic Rush with the camera of Sonic CD or Jazz Jackrabbit. All of the momentum was stripped from the controls, the level design is much worse (levels sprawl out all over the place and look identical in spots, so it's very difficult to understand where you need to go), there are far too many levels with far too few themes, most of the gameplay additions are gimmicky as hell, and the graphics are very inconsistent (the JonTron video does a good job showing this), the music is generic to the point of sounding like it came from a puzzle game and the bosses are all atrocious compared to the pretty good Mario World-esque ones of the first game; but it gets a lot of mileage out of the fact that you can take three hits before you die and every level is loaded with with health restorers. It's easily the worse of the two titles, but it's also infinitely more approachable than the first.
Bubsy 3D is a platformer that looks like Virtua Racing and controls like Tomb Raider but released after Super Mario 64 and Crash Bandicoot which mistakes "constantly mocking its own deficiencies" as "wit". Nothing more really needs to be said there.
You know what would be cool? Super Bubsy rejiggered to work on something newer than when Packard Bell still sold computers. A PC version of the slightly crappier version of the original console release isn't something I'm going to get hot and bothered for.
Other than offhand comments that are being falsely attributed to a response to this attack, no one in this thread is directly commenting on gun control itself. Someone brought up difficulty of obtaining ex-military weapons in the country to do actions like this, under the idea that there was great difficulty in doing so. There was a fairly similar terrorist attack earlier in the year in that same country using the same sorts of weapons.
The investigation of that attack made it clear how easy it was to buy those weapons initially (an undercover journalist with nothing more than a driver's licence walked into a store in Slovakia and walked out with a deactivated AK47 for less money than a PS4), and how easy it was to change them back into an actual gun (an international arms dealer converted them back into fully functional form, and then they were purchased by the terrorists as fully functional firearms in Belgium) and then into France across the nearly fully open border that exists between all three EU countries; and pointing that out is perfectly related to this attack where similar weapons were obtained in what is very likely a similar way.
The Charlie Hebdo terrorist attack earlier in the year (which is at least a context where you can kind of argue the point about an armed populace) made it clear that actual terrorist groups with the required connections have little problem accessing old Soviet machine guns and bombs and/or getting them into a country they are outlawed in. The ones used in that particular attack were purchased in Belgium, of all places.
To add on to this, the mass exodus of Muslims from the entire region out of fear for their lives was not something that happened under Al Qaeda, because, squabbles over religious sects notwithstanding, most of Al Qaeda's violence was directed outward. Huge lines of refugees flooding Western Europe and abandoning the Muslim world entirely is completely counterproductive to anything Al Qaeda wanted when they were trying to rally Muslims against Western interference.
They also realize that France has basically taken up the mantle of "meddling in Middle Eastern affairs" after general war weariness caused the United States to mostly defer problems in the region to the UN. Syria's government being overthrown, and the power vacuum it caused that was even worse than Saddam's, and the refugee crisis that it has dumped on Western Europe, was mostly France's mess, for example. And even worse, The Donald knew about this specific attack 11 months in advance and did nothing!
It's actually darkly amusing how counterproductive the huge scale terrorist attacks are. The little things people take in stride, and sometimes are even willing to sympathize with. But things like this and 9/11 are the kinds of things that cause governments to basically throw away rulebooks and actually get their hands dirty.
It's amusing to hear someone liken a trade embargo enforced by precisely one country to genocide. For sure it is worse to be on the shitlist of the US than, say, Uraguay or something; but if nothing else it is nice to do know the UN has nothing better to do than once again dictate that the US is obligated to trade with a country just because everyone else does.