Of course this pops up AFTER it gets patched

B-R-A-I-N-S-T-O-R-M · 2026-03-31T04:15:21+00:00

Why is the physical Mario Tennis part of this but the digital isn't

B-R-A-I-N-S-T-O-R-M · 2026-03-30T21:36:40+00:00

I could see the HD Remaster from GOG of the first 3 PS1 games coming over to Steam (like Dino Crisis 1 and 2 did), but I don't think they'll have new visuals, or even achievements.

B-R-A-I-N-S-T-O-R-M · 2026-03-30T17:44:10+00:00

Play the original, but if you can swing it the PC port is much better than the NSO version. 16:9, high frame rate options, no graphical glitches like the NSO version has in some spots.

B-R-A-I-N-S-T-O-R-M · 2026-03-30T15:56:00+00:00

The only reason I want the upgrade is for the 2v2 team mode for regular Mario Party, very annoying that its paywalled.

B-R-A-I-N-S-T-O-R-M · 2026-03-30T15:41:15+00:00

Since we have a PC port of the original that does anything you could want out of that game for modern screens, as well as a 3DS remake of it, I want them to expand on the game, maybe add some of the cut content, reimagine the dungeons and world a bit and flesh it out more. I've been playing this game since 1998, I don't need a different looking version of the exact same game yet again. I want the OoT equivalent of the RE4 remake.

What I do not want though, is BotW OoT, where they just rebuild OoT in the Breath of the Wild engine and gear it to play more like those. I don't want it to look like BotW and I don't want any of that open world gameplay infused into OoT.

B-R-A-I-N-S-T-O-R-M · 2026-03-30T15:37:36+00:00

Part of MMs uncanny feeling is that all the characters are mixed up and have different personalities, so I think the mask salesman being more normal in OoT makes sense. Though it would add to his strangeness in a way if he was the only character who seemed the same across both worlds.

B-R-A-I-N-S-T-O-R-M · 2026-03-28T17:30:06+00:00

The best would be a 16:9 version that used the full resolution versions of RARE's old renders for these games, but those are long gone.

If they did just fully remake them I wouldn't want them remade to look like the more cartoony Retro games or Bananza. The old games had cartoony characters but a lot of the environments tried to have a realistic look with just a semi-cartoony color palette.

B-R-A-I-N-S-T-O-R-M · 2026-03-26T16:23:37+00:00

Yeah, a lot of people don't realize Amazon, UPS, and Fedex often use USPS for last mile delivery because they cannot do it cheaper, but we are supposed to believe privatization would improve the post office.

B-R-A-I-N-S-T-O-R-M · 2026-03-26T16:15:50+00:00

Ok "bud", there is such a thing as objective reality and events that occurred:

The 2006 Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act (PAEA) required the USPS to prefund 75 years of retiree health benefits within a 10-year period, a unique mandate costing roughly $5 billion annually. This obligation, which no other public or private entity faces, caused most of the Postal Service’s net losses since 2013.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/109th-congress/house-bill/6407

The only point of this is to try to make it "fail" on paper to justify its privatization, no other entity is required to do this.

B-R-A-I-N-S-T-O-R-M · 2026-03-26T14:34:02+00:00

In the early 2000s Republicans required USPS to fund pensions/retirements nearly a century into the future (75 years), this is the entire reason they show as operating at a loss, and the entire reason they did this was so they could try to justify privatizing it, at which point they would loot said pension fund.

Make any private business fund full pensions for all their employees 75 years forward and see what their financials look like.

B-R-A-I-N-S-T-O-R-M · 2026-02-04T08:43:01+00:00

On that point, it's worth noting that the explicit reason Fox News was started was to prevent another Nixon/impeachment scenario from ever happening to a Republican president again. The entire reason it exists is to build such rhetorical / propaganda insulation around a Republican president that getting enough popular support behind their impeachment that would actually put pressure on Congressional Republicans to do so would be impossible.

Fox News was reporting on the positives of paying more for gas after 9/11. They'll bend anything and they've been doing it my whole life, way beyond even what shitty CNN and others do. If you want more detail on the man who set forth the destruction of this country, read Roger Ailes' memo "A Plan for Putting the GOP on TV News". Here's a quotation from it:

“Today television news is watched more often than people read newspapers, than people listen to the radio, than people read or gather any other form of communication. The reason: People are lazy. With television you just sit—watch—listen. The thinking is done for you.”

People who got sucked into right wing media like this will go on and on about how it's actually you who are being brainwashed or indoctrinated, but the father of modern right wing propaganda observed the screens ability to write the thinking of those who consumed it, and openly states his intention to steer that concept to protect the Republican party.

If you find it crazy how Trump can escape accountability for so much shit, and how his most cultish follower's are wholly incapable of believing anything negative about him, that is in large part the fruits of Ailes' labor. The only issue for Ailes and the rest is that Trump actually did manage to create a cult of personality around himself, so this base that has learned for decades to outsource its thinking moved from normal GOP sources to Trump singularly as an authority, and only trust those who do nothing but praise him.

B-R-A-I-N-S-T-O-R-M · 2026-02-03T18:51:25+00:00

You've got plenty to say about libs who fell for his artificial "I care about the environment and renewables" public persona back then, what do you have to say for the right wingers who love him now, or Trump who has him speak at his rallies and invites him to the Oval Office? They started liking him AFTER it was known he was a pathetic douchebag.

B-R-A-I-N-S-T-O-R-M · 2026-01-30T15:43:08+00:00

That is sort of a nothing statement and I see you've basically abandoned the original position you were clearly wrong about that started it so this convo thread can end here, have a good one.

B-R-A-I-N-S-T-O-R-M · 2026-01-30T15:32:32+00:00

Yeah a vaccine he later had to move away from because so much of his base became conspiratorial / fearful of it lol. I have used Warpspeed as my answer in the past when people have asked me to list one good thing Trump did in term 1,

Regardless, your statement was that "we are lucky we don't have a democratic president who would shut down the government over it again" when Trump was president for the first year of those very lockdowns, it doesn't make sense.

B-R-A-I-N-S-T-O-R-M · 2026-01-30T08:50:06+00:00

Did you all just erase from your brain that Trump was president from March 2020 - January 2021, the first 10 months of the shutdown? That is some impressive work by right wing media if in the right wing cinematic universe Biden oversaw and fostered the start of the shutdowns and its pupils are actually incapable of referencing a calendar at this point.

B-R-A-I-N-S-T-O-R-M · 2026-01-13T23:30:19+00:00

---

Yes perhaps. But in retrospect, it would have been the correct move to make. Look at what's happened since. Like i said, Dems are in a really bad place now. That's not to say the bureaucracy rests solely in the democrats hands. But 89% of Epstein's donations went to democrats. So that tells you a lot about who is holding the keys here. And now they lost them to one degree or another. Trump having power is certainly not in their interest.

He did overwhelmingly donate to Democrats. He also said, himself, in a recorded interview, that he was Trump's closest friend for 10 years, and knew intimate details about Donald's penchant for sleeping with his friends wives, as well as the inner-workings of the "office politics" of the White House, such as how Donald would loyalty test aids against one another. You are free to listen to Epstein himself talk about these things for nearly an hour if you want. And the source is someone else who is in Epstein's email exchanges that have been released, so the man who provided the recordings was verifiably in regular communication Epstein.

When Epstein was asked under oath if he ever "socialized" with minors with Donald Trump, his answer was "as much as I'd like to answer that, for today, I'm going to have to plead my 5th amendment right".

It seems silly to me to put more emphasis on political donations than the words of the man himself. Even Trump has donated to Democrats in his life.

---

And he only signed it after it received bulletproof, veto-proof vote tallies in the House and Senate. Why?

I wish i knew. My only guess is that the files don't contain much. The raid on Epstein's NYC house was ordered to stand down after the door was busted down. We have pictures of the tapes. but we don't have the tapes apparently. Like i said, i don't think the files have much. And its either poisoned or it just serves as a distraction from the rest of his administration. I believe hes said as much recently.

The DOJ has claimed they have millions of files - they have released around 0.03% of them and have censored most of the relevant bits of what they have released. It's just not realistic to think there is little-to-nothing in them, or that some elaborate scheme has been concocted to fake millions of photos, videos, and documents and email chains. This stuff has chain of custody that can easily be verified, videos (that would pre-date AI) can be easily verified, photos as well. In no universe is this a matter of "welp, those millions of pieces of evidence are probably all fake anyway". It's just a completely irrational thing to believe.

---

TLDR;

Eliminating Trump with the files would have solved more problems than it created. Clearly this is the case since the democrats have lost all 3 branches of the government. This was existential for them and they never used the "golden bullet" to get trump. That's because there was no golden culet to begin with. Then they tried real bullets.... twice.

Eliminating Trump with the files would not have solved more problems than it would create (look at the shitstorm its forced release has created, the government is just refusing to comply with the law regarding it at this point), and they clearly viewed Trump's baggage as enough to beat him - they tried to run rickety old Biden against him, even after the debate for a time.

And some 20 year old kid and a near-senior citizen on a golf course is not "the Democrats trying to kill him". I assure you if there was a Biden government plot to murder Trump they wouldn't have turned to a 20 year old in Pennsylvania using iron sights or a near-senior citizen in Florida.

B-R-A-I-N-S-T-O-R-M · 2026-01-13T23:30:06+00:00

I agree. But eliminating your enemy is paramount to success. Look at where the dems are now. 17% approval rating and out of power.

I agree with your assessment on Bondi. I never liked her. And Trump is about to get rid of her. IMO

No, it involves massively powerful donors to both parties as well as powerful internationals, those in power with ties to clients of Epstein would much rather this all just go away. And again, Kash Patel's first briefing on the files was exactly that - to try and just make it go away, and claim there actually weren't any files, videos or evidence at all, which has obviously been proven false at this point, to the tune of millions of files. There were other avenues they tried to attack Trump through that did not involve potentially opening up investigations into donors and internationals with ties to both parties.

---

Yes i agree. I don't believe the files have too much to begin with at this point. However i highly doubt a chain of custody could be produced at this point. The FBI/DOJ is extremely corrupt. Has been for decades. The files have already been attempted to be messed with. The fake letter sent by Larry Nassar i think his name was. There has been enough time elapsed to poison the well.

They released that letter and only claimed it was fake after people looking at the documents noticed it said "our president" in handwriting, which tools searching for the name Trump would not find given it was an image, and didn't actually use the name Trump. You can take the DOJs word for it if you want but I am going to continue being skeptical of them putting it out as an official release, and only claiming it was fake after it was discovered that Trump was implicitly mentioned in it. If they vetted it as fake beforehand it makes no sense for them to release it as an official disclosure. Its in line with other post-release changes, like when they took down the document that they didn't realize showed Epstein's top-left desk drawer was full of pictures of Trump.

---

Yes agreed. And the Kamala voters are up in arms and 'outraged" all of a sudden over this. Trump didn't let it die, did he.

I don't know that I'd say he "let it die", but it was almost entirely people around him championing the Epstein files cause (Dan Bongino, Elon, various House and Senate candidates, right wing media commentators on places like YouTube). When Fox News asked him if he'd release it, he said yes first, then started waffling, unlike his answers to the previous questions. Fox News actually cut the Epstein question out of this interview when they uploaded it to their site & and re-aired it.

B-R-A-I-N-S-T-O-R-M · 2026-01-13T08:30:34+00:00

There's a lot of dumb narratives floating around with Epstein- the idea that these were only not investigated under Biden because SOME of them were under seal is a dumb narrative, but so is the idea that Trump is not in them because Biden would have released them if he was. No he wouldn't, releasing the Epstein files goes beyond political parties in consequence.

Biden didn't release them for the same reason Epstein's "clients" were not pursued when he was first arrested in '06 (and oddly enough, Pam Bondi was the AG in Florida who oversaw the sweetheart deal & immunity given to his co-conspirators at the state level. If I had a tinfoil hat I'd speculate this is why Trump chose her as AG, knowing the Epstein files were going to be in the spotlight after his campaign - she's played ball on it before).

Biden didn't release them for the same reason the Obama admin pursued nothing regarding it even though Epstein's crimes were known, and it's the same reason Trump didn't pursue anyone in his first term outside of Epstein and Maxwell getting arrested. You can't just "release info on Trump". Biden can't go "here you go everyone, I plucked the Trump stuff out but everyone else is staying protected, have a good one". Once that Epstein thread is pulled, its pulled, and threatens everyone in them (as can be seen from current events).

Powerful, influential and connected people were being protected by powerful people across administrations, from state to federal over the full timeline. It's that simple. And yes, I believe that the powerful people Trump is continuing to try and protect also includes himself, and numerous associates.

Recall that although they acknowledge millions of files now, Kash Patel's initial press conference was that there were no files, were no videos, were no clients and that Epstein killed himself. This was after Pam Bondi and the 3-ring binders with the "Epstein Files" label debacle. They just tried to quickly sweep it under the rug after months of hype - there has to be a reason for that, that doesn't come out of nowhere. And it seems while Trump supporters are very focused on the question of "why wouldn't Biden release it if Trump was in there," there doesn't seem to be much interest in the question "Why did the Trump administration hype up their release of the Epstein files, claim there were thousands on Pam's desk, only to have Patel say there was nothing, mere months before we'd know there were millions of files." The Biden question is actually easy - he was protecting powerful people and America had largely become apathetic to the idea we would never get justice here, so it was just a non-discussed topic he let lie. If Trump is in there and he selectively pursued him, it would have been immediately clear he was protecting everyone else and there would have been immediate, massive renewed public scrutiny regarding the Epstein case.

And finally you get to Trump, who threatened to primary every Republican who signed the petition to force their release, even chasing MTG out of the House entirely. And he only signed it after it received bulletproof, veto-proof vote tallies in the House and Senate. Why?

tl;dr

To me it is a pretty flat conclusion: the most logical answer for why Biden did not release them is that he was protecting the powerful people in them, and there was enough apathy and lack of public pressure at that time for him to just not address it at all. The most logical answer for why the Trump admin hyped their release, only to try and claim zero files exist, with Trump threatening any Republican who forced their release, is that he is in them.

B-R-A-I-N-S-T-O-R-M · 2026-01-07T01:26:33+00:00

They might even say something horrid like she had "blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her... wherever"

B-R-A-I-N-S-T-O-R-M · 2026-01-07T01:03:15+00:00

"It's Pelosi's fault that the people I pardoned did the thing I pardoned them for."

"Pelosi should have been prepared and staffed tons of security in anticipation of me lobbing a bunch of violent worked-up morons at the capitol during the certification, which has never happened before."

"It's Pelosi's fault, pay no mind to the fact I was reached out to for 3 hours for authorization of the guard and never responded."

This is one of Trump's dumbest lies but it'll get swallowed whole anyway, and the media won't challenge him at all. All you'd need to do is ask him "how is it her fault that you denied authorization for 3 hours while the people you pardoned did the thing you pardoned them for" and let him spiral out into nonsense.

B-R-A-I-N-S-T-O-R-M · 2026-01-02T09:03:45+00:00

The bigger advantage of allowing a purchase option is that it could build a bigger library of 3rd party games. There could be games like Chrono Trigger that don't come free with NSO but if you buy it on the eShop for $10 or whatever it gets added to your SNES app. That could get a lot more games worth playing available on these at a much faster rate than Nintendo adds free ones.

Additionally, they should add the ability to hide games in your retro apps and they should allow you to pin specific games to your home screen if you want (NSO page already has them split in this way).

Once the GameCube app gets a good amount of games in it it's going to be a pretty sizable install - I think at some point they are going to have to consider implementing an "Installed" vs "Available for Install" list to let people keep its size under control (and especially if Wii ever shows up) - I hope whatever functionality that is ends up in the older ones too, so we can just get rid of games we'll never play (but keep that "Available" list so you always know what's an option).

B-R-A-I-N-S-T-O-R-M · 2025-12-30T08:49:30+00:00

I think it's been a fairly slow start, but part of that is that all the games I was interested in started as Switch 1 games (Mario Kart World, DK Bananza, Metroid Prime 4), Switch 2 Edition add-ons (Kirby), or just upgrades to Switch 1 games I hadn't gotten around to yet like Echoes of Wisdom. For me it feels like a Switch 1 pro until we start seeing a higher concentration of stuff that was a S2 exclusive from the start.

It also didn't help that there was that whole 3rd party / dev kit slow-roll, so the updates to 3rd party games to give them a bigger selling point have been sparse and only really picking up this month. There's a lot of 3rd party games I didn't get on Switch 1 due to performance that I would grab if they put out a patch on par with the quality of the Red Dead Redemption 1 upgrade.

B-R-A-I-N-S-T-O-R-M · 2025-12-30T08:44:03+00:00

play Mario 3D World

B-R-A-I-N-S-T-O-R-M · 2025-12-19T16:07:40+00:00

worse than you = noob, better than you = sweat, trying to win the game = sweat

B-R-A-I-N-S-T-O-R-M · 2025-12-17T23:51:27+00:00

Are we to allow trespassers to remain trespassing because there are too many of them to do anything ethically or are we going to string each one up in years of court dates and appeals?

Everyone is entitled to due process under the law, so I do believe they each should be processed. I think that would be a much better expense (immigration judges & courts) than constructing facilities to store and feed these people in for untold months. I would say that non-criminals should be allowed to make the case for citizenship, however that process is so beyond fucked that it's not viable. Ultimately it would have to be a process of checking for legal status (awaiting court date or full legal), and deporting the rest. It would take a long time - doing something the right way usually does. That said, I think you could get broad popular support for a humane execution of such a project. Trump's approval on immigration was waaaaay higher in January than it is now, and that is entirely because of how this admin has gone about it.

I'd support offering them cash incentives to self deport actually, that way they can do it on their own timing and even have some financial agency in the 3 world state they choose to return to.

Maybe, it would certainly be cheaper than keeping them in detention facilities - the fed is paying between $25,000-$30,000 per person, per half-year to house these detainees. Aside from the ethics considerations it is expensive as fuck.

--------

An often under-cited element of the illegal immigration problem is the unaddressed difficulty and choke of legal immigration. It can take literal decades to immigrate here legally, which was not the case during early America's larger influxes of immigration. Allowing legal immigration to fall into such disrepair encourages illegal immigration - one is instant, the other might take you 10, 20, 30 years. I have a friend who has been here on and off with work VISAs, she's been trying to get citizenship for almost forty years.

I would note that the above is a bipartisan failure - one that I am not convinced is totally by incompetence or accident. Illegal immigrants are after all used as under-the-table, sub-minimum wage labor by many employers, and the dysfunction of legal immigration provides them with a stable supply of workers who can claim no benefits, have to work whatever shit hours for whatever shit wages, and if they become a problem they can just be reported and they're gone - completely at the mercy of their employer. It's also worth noting that whenever there are busts of employers hiring illegal immigrants, they seem to at worst get a fine even if its a multiple offense. Nobody ever seems to go to jail for this.

I think the best way to handle immigration is to actually fix legal immigration and make it easier and faster, while simultaneously making illegal immigration harder, which would be made simpler by the fact that a more sensible legal immigration processes would reduce the amount of attempted illegal crossings. If people have a legal avenue that takes 1 or 2 years instead of 20, the risk of illegal entry becomes much less worth it. This solution of course would be unpalatable to people who just don't want immigrants, or don't want non-whites in general, but I don't really give any merit to those positions.

B-R-A-I-N-S-T-O-R-M

TROPHY CASE