Open letter to the anglophone community in Québec:

I am a sovereigntist. Now for the 10% of you that didn't immediately click out of this letter after hearing that, I wish to reach out to you in good faith. For the longest time, there has been a lot of misinformation regarding the movement, namely that it was hostile to the English Quebecois. I cannot blame anyone for believing this, as being bilingual myself, I have consumed my fair share of English media, and let's just say that their reporting on the topic has always been rather... spotty and selective. Many will bring up Jacques Parizeau's comment about ethnic vote, which I believe has always been an unfair take. He was rightfully frustrated with a narrow loss after it was rumoured that the federal government tied to weaponize immigration to put a stop to our democratic process, and in retrospect, he was kind of right:

https://www.journaldequebec.com/2025/11/25/les-liberaux-accuses-davoir-truque-le-resultat-du-referendum-de-1995-par-le-bloc 

https://www.journaldequebec.com/2025/11/25/jean-chretien-avait-donne-linstruction-daccelerer-les-demandes-de-citoyennete-avant-le-referendum-de-1995

https://montreal.citynews.ca/2025/12/03/commons-committee-summons-jean-chretien-over-1995-referendum/ 

You will likely ask me: "Why many French articles?". I tried very hard to find English media which covered this, but a lot of information isn't talked about, like how an over 440% increase in immigration fillings were completed by another province taking over Quebec cases, which tilted this in their favour. Whether you are for the yes or no side, Canada had no right to impede on our democratic rights, and weaponizing immigrants is disrespectful to them to boot. 

Parizeau truly believed that the anglophone communities needed to be protected, and it is truly a shame that his poor choice of words were twisted to make it seem like he said something he did not. Protecting anglophones and minorities has been the unanimous position of the sovereigntist movement since its inception, where it was allied with the Irish communities, as evidenced by the speech Parizeau had prepared in the event that the "Yes" side had won. 

He states: "I wish to specifically address the members of Quebec's anglophone community to reiterate our attachment to their presence among us and our commitment to respecting and defending their rights and take every measure possible to guarantee in the new Québec constitution the preservation of the identity of their community and institutions. Once written in the constitution, these rights will not be possible to modify without their accord. 

Immigrants, permanent residents and refugees whom are currently on Québec soil are wondering what the future will bring. I want them to know that they won't need to fear any chances to their status or current situation. Those waiting for Canadian citizenship will be able to, without further delay request their right to a Quebecois citizenship at the moment sovereignty is proclaimed. We invite them all to share with other Quebecois the exciting challenge of building a new country. 

 The 65 000 first nations across Québec in spread across 11 distinct nations whom we recognize the existence since 10 years ago must also know that we plan to respect their current rights and ensure that they benefit with us to a level of government autonomy equivalent or higher than what exists elsewhere on the continent. The new constitution of a sovereign Québec will entrench their rights and they will not be possible to modify without their expressed accord." 

https://youtu.be/jXccRvRseAI?t=257 

The fact is, every single sovereigntist leaders since René Lévèsque spoke of giving anglophones a special protected minority status after a successful referendum, as the protection of the French language and culture wouldn't be as much of an urgent matter in an independent Québec. And yet, this is something English media never covered. We have always wanted to include you in this project. We have always wanted to build alongside you, and even in current day, Paul St-Pierre Plamondon reiterates this in English. In an independent Québec, we have a duty of care, and we will be steadfast. 

https://youtu.be/iTmyOZV0v80?t=2951 

Again, this remains unchanged. While I invite you to join us in the makings of a brand new country that can work in the best interests of its people, more importantly, I want you to know the truth; unfiltered. We can put debates to bed by just going through with the project and believing in ourselves. Sovereignty is not about division and fear, it's about unity and hope. And at least, if you still disagree, at the very least, you can do so while more informed. And if you immigrated to Québec, welcome, and we would really appreciate your help, but also your valuable input. There are many places to get informed. Montréal has a café named Club Pays where many people come to talk about the project, and they welcome people of any political alignment. Take the time to talk with us, and we will be happy to have a civil, understanding exchange of ideas. Vive le Québec Libre!

The oversaturation of Open World

In the early 2000s gaming media collectively decided to take the word « linear » and decided that it, and anything associated with it was bad with absolutely no room for nuance. You can’t walk over a fence? Bad. You can’t go to the end game town right away? Bad. And yet, those decisions were made with a purpose. Linearity is by design.

Now, a lot of people will look to a game like The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword, Pokémon Sun & Moon, or Final Fantasy XIII as prime examples of linearity. Yet those are extreme cases in which the game holds your hand nearly the whole way throughout. In truth, most games employ a different kind of linearity. A classic Zelda game will gate areas cleverly by requiring you to posess an item to proceed forward. A Metroid game will let you get to the same area in multiple ways, let you explore, but will expect you to hit some checkpoints to proceed. Your average Xenoblade game will have story gates but slowly open up over time.

The fact is, linearity does not equal the absence of freedom. Linearity is structure. This structure is the vehicle through which a story can be told more effectively. It can ensure that the player sees the story told in a comprehensible order. It also allows one to make sure that the setpieces are in place to better tell the story; whether it is a location, character growth and development, the player achieving specific exploits, etc… A fully open world game with no linearity whatsoever will need to rely on environmental storytelling which the player may or may not stumble upon, telling its story in a disparate order, or severely limit the complexity of said story and the ability to develop a character arc.

Linearity is also the vehicle through which a level, area, town, or dungeon can designed with intention. In a sandbox setting, intentional puzzle solutions are more difficult to design. In fact, the Wilds era Zelda games exemplify this perfectly. In most cases, dungeons can be trivialized with creative exploitation of the physics engine. While it may appeal to some, it is possible to almost entirely skip dungeons. It is difficult to design a puzzle when the player is not limited in any way. In fact, you will even notice that shrines will in fact remove many of your tools and abilities because even Nintendo understands the limitations cause by having no limitations.

Linearily also allows for proper game balance. In fact, if you look at Pokémon, the games were actually balanced far better when they were route-based. It would allow players to slowly build level-appropriate teams with a smaller roster of Pokémon that would eventually expand as the adventure continued. It was a more gradual progression as opposed to the likes of Scarlet and Violet where exploring even a little can put you many levels above where you actually need to be. Structure allows for tailored encounters. Now, of course, one could propose dynamic leveling, but this will hardly solve the issue unless each gym and area is rebalanced at multiple levels. Some will bring up the forced tutorials as an argument, but that could just be fixed by letting us choose « no » and carrying on.

Many also assume that linearity means a straight line to the end, but that is hardly the case. Golden Sun is known as a very linear experience, and yet, it does let you complete Kolima forest before the Mercury Lighthouse and vice versa. It lets you visit towns out of order to a degree. Xenoblade is often seen as open world, but even X, the most open game in the series gates areas to tell its story. More mainline Xenoblade games will gate you off then slowly open up the world to you. Those games provide freedom, while also providing a structure to its players. It also provides tools to prevent players from wasting their time. You can get guidance for sidequests, you will be told specifically where you need to go. No need for a guide to find obtuse side objectives. For someone with limited time in their day, this is great. For those who do not want it, you can turn it off.

Some also make the claim that a hub world is somehow open world. That is far from the truth. Ocarina of Time’s Hyrule field is a small connecting hub that lets you travel between areas. Termina is also a hub that lets you get to every temple and area. In fact, the same is true about games as far as A Link to the Past and Link’s Awakening. There is an order to the tasks you can accomplish. There may be some freedom in the order to which you can complete objectives, but there are gates through story, items and dungeons. The original Zelda game may have been relatively open, but all games after it until Breath of the Wild have been linear to some degree.

Linearity in end of itself is not some cardinal design sin to avoid. It is a design tool that needs to be used properly. Too much restriction leads to players feeling tugged along for the ride. Too little restriction leads to a sandbox experience that leads to endless exploration but lack of design depth. With the obsession of games media with promoting open world as the only acceptable way to make games, we have found ourselves discrediting intentional game design, and killing multiple genres in favour of a standardized lack of variety. And all of ot started with a lack of muance 

How the Smash community bravely did the right thing and got punished for it.

In the year 2020, a wave of allegations hit the Super Smash Bros Community, especially centered around Smash 4 and Ultimate (although every game got dragged in the line of fire, especially Melee for some reason). Those included sexual harassement and grooming among many others. I will not go into details because it is frankly not my place to talk about specifics. I was not involved personally, and would find it disrespectful to even weigh in on this. However, I think that the effects of those situations are worth discussing.

The community did everything right. The didn't try to sweep it under the rug, they investigated, prepared statements, banned the offending players, put things in place to try and prevent this from happening ever again, and made everything public. It was a very difficult thing to do considering some of these people were influential, and yet, they did the right thing. Still, they got punished.

Now, you can't talk about the community without someone coming out of the woodworks and calling everyone in the community a predator, no matter if they were even close to being involved with the situation. You'll hear things like "Smelly try-hard predators" or "Nintendo was right to take down tournaments run by predators", insinuating that every single player matches the description. And let's not beat around the bush; this is absolutely weaponized by casual elitist players who already had an irrational disdain for competitive players in the first place. They jumped on the occasion to smear the community's name without hesitation, throwing wanton generalizations because it fits with their agenda. It comes from a place of bad faith. Yet, if you're an outsider looking in, it's deafening, and defending yourself only makes it worse. We were punished for taking action to protect innocents.

And don't be mistaken. What happened was wrong. But also, it is completely messed up to realize that if we had stepped on our morals and protected the alleged abusers, we might have ended up in a far better position and not have to deal with all of this. People talk about creating an environment that is safe, yet when a community tries to do just that and doesn't protect its alleged abusers, it gets lambasted for it. Personally, I think we should have applauded them for taking action, not the other way around. The "critics" throwing insults around are essentially disincentivizing honesty.

If you think Smash is the only community with bad apples, you would be wrong. Communities bring in all sorts of people, some great. Some not so great. The bigger the community, the higher the likelihood of a "not so great" individual getting in there. I can guarantee you that bad apples like this exist in every community. Heck, some of those in the greater Nintendo communities that accused us of being predators were outed as alleged predators themselves. Bad people exist. You may think it os possible to catch them all before they act, but that is entirely naive. All you can do is prevention and react properly when such terrible actions occur.

And so, I will say something many will deem controversial; anti-competitive detractors who throw such insults around are contributing to making the world a more dangerous place for potential abuse victims. By punishing honesty and harassing a community that is making major strides in making their communities safer, you are telling people that doing the right thing will end up poorly for them. Good deeds get punished.

The Humble dev

With Mario Kart World's version 1.1.2 update, a lot of people have taken to the Internet to criticize Nintendo for essentially killing the online mode for them. The reasoning is as follows: Many players are not a fan of playing through intermission tracks, especially online, preferring a 3 lap system like the classic games. While online prioritized intermission tracks, some were able to circumvent this by just voting for random tracks, which defaulted to the 3 lap setup. The latest update removed this exploit.

The fact that we're hearing both competitive and casual players complaining about this feature shows that this isn't a popular decision, but I think this is emblematic of a much more deeply-rooted problem within Nintendo, and many other high profile developers.

Humility is one of the most important things a game developer can have that nobody talks about. And I'm not talking about apologizing for unpopular decision or bending over backward to external demands. I am talking about having the ability to set your pride aside and look at things from another lens. When Project M was being developped, it was being made by core Melee fans for core Melee fans. However, as we continued developing the game, we got a lot of feedback, and not just from the core demographic we were aiming for. We read through them, and people would explain what they enjoyed about Brawl, or even Smash 64, which led us to a realization that our quest for additional depth could lead us in an alternative direction. While Melee's feel was definitely a large influence to our core design, we started thinking about how to perhaps implement features people loved about those two games, and we ended up with something unique, bridging the gap between communities that barely ever interacted prior. We were more than Melee 2.0.

What's more is that we've also realized something shocking; people also played Project M casually. This was hardly intended, but instead of trying to stop it or ignore it, we agreed to one conclusion; that's not what we set out to do, but that's ok. They're having fun, and that's ok. This led us to add new modes like Turbo mode and All Stars Versus, the Turbo Booster item, costumes, whacky stages alongside competitive stages, etc... we embraced them because a fan's a fan. There is no right way to play a game, just one that is right for you.

Going back to Mario Kart, it's quite obvious that they wanted intermission courses, e.g. driving into tracks to be their gimmick for this entry. The issue is that as interesting as it may seem at face value, it hasn't stuck as well as they had hoped. People trying to avoid the feature entirely by using "Random" is a very strong indicator of that. Patching out the exploit isn't even the issue in as much as having to select random to get a 3 lap model shouldn't have been a requirement in the first place. An online mode could have existed for courses with intermissions, and one without. Heck, even offline, Grand Prix is stuck with those intermission maps. Having seen how unpopular forcing intermissions tracks was, a humble developer would have looked at that and said "cleary my vision isn't connecting with people, I should let people play the way they want". Instead, they doubled down and enforced said vision.

And this isn't the first time they did that as a company. During the Wii, DS, Wii U and 3DS eras, they forced divisive control methods as the only ways to engage with games, not offering alternatives. While they arguably are doing better at this nowadays, I remember Masahiro Sakurai forcing his strange control scheme in Kid Icarus Uprising, which was a left-handed person's nightmare, especially if you upgraded to the New 3DS which couldn't use the circle pad pro. I remember Star Fox Zero immediately setting off red flags with just about anyone who tried it, and they stubbornly refused to change the controls in a effort to justify the existence of the Gamepad, leading to a massive commercial flop. I remember them forcing basic menu options to the Gamepad, or forcing motion controls on games that could have had button controls options. Nintendo had an experience in mind, and it did not matter how you felt; you had to play by their rules.

Super Smash Bros is another one for discussion. Nintendo has made it extremely difficult for people to play competitively, whether it's by legal means, or by removing features, or awkwardly adding unpopular mechanics like tripping to prevent advanced play (in this case, it was to punish dash-dancing). They would surgically remove everything that they saw as an exploit instead of just embracing them. Nintendo had a very specific way they wanted people to play, and if you didn't abide by those rules, you couldn't play at all.

It gets even worse when mods are involved. Mods get regularly shut down. And instead of just looking at them and thinking "Wow, our fans did something pretty cool", they go scorched earth. Even when it's not even a mod, they got offended when the Nintendo Minute hosts proposed the concept of a nuzlocke run.

A humble dev would look at criticism as a means to improve. They would look at people playing their games differently as an opportunity to reach new audiences. They would look at sprawling competitive communities and feel honoured that people would devote themselves to art they created. A humble developer would look at fan work and feel thankful for the love and loyalty. A humble dev would listen. He wouldn't always agree, but he would listen.

The path to improvement is intrisically tied with the ability to see other perspectives. I am not an established developer, and yet, modders sometimes see what big name developers at the top of their ivory tower cannot.

Editorial: Pokemon should be harder. Open world makes this complicated.

For the longest time, people have been asking for an open-world Pokemon game where you can do everything out of order, and explore to your heart’s content. People dreamed about playing the games like how Ash lives out his journey in the Anime. It seemed like an appealing proposition, and now that we are getting there, I regret everything.

Pokemon’s difficulty is laughably low. Even in classic Pokemon games, it was very easy to defeat gym leaders who did not even have a full team of 6 Pokemon, especially with how easy it is to prepare with type advantages in mind. Without a challenge to push back against you, there really isn’t any satisfaction in prevailing against these characters at all. People will say “It’s a game for children, it should be easy”, and I argue that this is a preposterous notion.

On one hand, it is patronizing to assume that children lack the ability to learn and improve, especially with how their brains are extremely good at gathering and processing information. Furthermore, Pokemon fans skew far older than the target demographic, and as such, adding a difficulty setting would simply fix the issue. There is no reason to not have it there, and Pokemon Black 2 did in fact add this option, so it is not a new concept. However, I argue that even this solution would not be quite enough to offset the impact of an Open World Pokemon experience.

Having an open-world game means that:

1. It is possible to catch a wide variety of Pokemon before a gym, and build an entire team tailored to take down a specific gym leader. In classic games, you were limited to a pool of available Pokemon, and needed to choose them more strategically.

2. Exploring means, it is extremely possible to overlevel. Older games having many areas gated means that while it was possible to grind, it was time-consuming. In Sword and Shield, it was possible to grind on strong Pokemon and in dynamax dens extremely quickly. I was 20+ levels above the first gym leader just because I had explored the entire area.

3. Held items and money can be grinded ad-nauseum.

Some solutions can “help”, but may not even be enough:

1. Have gyms scale with your level up to a certain degree. Clearly, being able to grind is a good thing to let people of multiple skill levels be able to beat the game. However, the gym leaders should still never be too low below you. An easier mode could scale, but allow you to be a good few levels above the gym leader. A harder difficulty should not let you be more than a small handful of levels above them, and a hardest level should scale very close to your own level.

2. Gym leaders shouldn’t just be type-dependent anymore. Instead, they should focus on combat strategies and have better AI. It would be much harder to trivialize a gym if a character uses a Trick Room build, sets up weather conditions, or mixes Earthquake and flying types / levitate. These could be countered through preparation, but the solution would no-longer be to send 6 fire types at the grass-type gym-leader.

3. Hard mode should add some EVs and IVs in relevant stats. They don’t need to be maxed out, but the Pokemon should not be pushovers.

More can be done, but these tiny details would help a lot. It still wouldn’t fix the problem of being able to over-prepare, but it would mitigate some of it. Furthermore, the abundance of choice wouldn’t replace the concept of working with a limited pool of resources available to you and making the best of it.

I’m not saying that open-world can’t be done right, but it comes as the cost of the classic Pokemon style. It’s similar to how some feel let down by Breath of the Wild potentially marking the end of the classic 3D Zelda formula. Both are valid styles with ups and downs, but when one replaces the other, it leaves a gap that is not so-easily-replaced.

I have not enjoyed Sword and Shield, and am not exactly excited for Scarlet and Violet. I could change my mind, but not much seems to be done to add even a modicum of challenge. A single difficulty setting toggle would go a long way.

Oppinion: Why games preservation is under relentless threat

Video games, much like music, movies, and other art forms, perhaps even more so, are part of the cultural zeitgeist, and for many, even part of people’s identities. While I will not discuss the potential issues with letting a hobby have too much sway over your personality, it is undeniable that people are affected by the media they consume in numerous ways. People can be seen wearing clothing and accessories centered around an intellectual property. People will also be seen congregating around events such as tournaments and conventions centered around a general hobby, or even a subsection of it. People will also go to great lengths to keep their favourite media alive, and that includes things as crazy as creating entire controller boards like the PhobGCC, emulator hooks like Brawlback and Slippi, HDMI mods for classic systems, etc… People want to preserve what is precious to them. Sometimes, you just want to go back to something you grew up with, or continue to engage in something you currently enjoy well into the future.

The PhobGCC, attempting to survive the inevitable discontinuation of Gamcube controllers

Now, the problem is that there is a stampede of elephants in the room. One issue has to do with certain people simply not caring as of now. I say “now” because those who appear to not care about this appear to skew much younger. This makes some degree of sense, considering that I was like that when I was younger. I always wanted the newest thing. In my mind, new meant better; more advanced. Every time a new system was announced, I would devote myself to that new system fully, leaving my old consoles in the dust. I even sold some of them, which in retrospect, I deeply regret. But then I grew up, and there were times where I thought: “Man, I really want to go back and play Star Fox 64”. I didn’t have my Nintendo 64 anymore. I tried on the Wii virtual console, and while it wasn’t exactly perfect emulation, it did the job for me at the time. It brought me comfort to revisit something that brought me so many joyful memories. But also, with Virtual console, I discovered the YS and Shining Force series, and I went back to discover some of those old gems. Virtual console was not perfect, but it allowed me to expand my tastes, and revisit old favourites. As you grow older, you start to yearn for old, familiar experiences. It’s like seeing an old friend after being away for a long time. As such, while these younger consumers don’t care, they will in due time, and it will be too late. 

The virtual console, initially a good idea for preservation, but instead of improving on it, was replaced with a predatory subscription model.

Another elephant is business. Corporate bodies are not incentivized to keep games readily available, and when they do so, it is in a very predatory manner. A corporation’s mission is to maximize profit and growth. Preservation is not one of their priorities. As such, controlling your access to products they offer is their MO. With control, they can keep selling the same software over and over again as they let older versions of said software fall into disrepair, making them technically “available”, but more scarce and difficult to use. Unless you are skilled at hardware-modding for instances, most of your classic systems simply cannot even connect to newer TVs, and most of the “easier” solutions for those who are unwilling to spend a premium come with major setbacks such as massive input lag… and that’s if you can even track down the necessary hardware and software. While re-releases are a possibility, not all games get this chance, and when a game is remade, there are times when some prefer features in an older version. For instances in The Legend of Zelda, Ocarina of time, the Gamecube has a Master Quest disk, which gives you remixed dungeons. However, if you play the 3DS version, it isn’t the true Master Quest, and instead, flips the whole game and increases damage taken. Both games have the “same” mode, but that is in name only. Heck, if you look at Super Smash Bros. Melee, the standard is to use the NTSC version, due to PAL versions having seemingly small, but significant balance changes. Even version differences matter to people. 

These are the differences for Fox and Falco between NTSC and PAL. There some all accross the cast. Many would heavily affect the meta.

As such, just remaking a game isn’t enough to preserve gaming history. Ideally, having the ability to roll back to older builds, as is evidenced by World of Warcraft players, is a valuable feature. Furthermore, anyone who enjoys games like Silent Hills might not really enjoy the remakes that remove the fog and have major visual glitches. Now, I’m not arguing that companies should be compelled to support older systems until the end of time, but they ought to offer solutions for continued ownership. Some argue that a service-based catalogue is advantageous, but I find it a very lacking solution. On one hand, this requires DRM. If you do not connect online regularly, you will lose access. This also means that access to your games will inevitably wane as the online service is discontinued. All of your progress will be lost, and every month where you didn’t play games on the service will be wasted money. Subscription models only exist to nickle and dime you continuously. Yet when they do discontinue the service, you will lose said progress anyways, and if that’s important to you, this is essentially ransomware. You must keep paying, or you will lose access to your saves. This also gives all of the power to the corporations, which can decide to withhold access at any time. If you break the End–User agreement that they force you to accept after you already gave them your money and have no recourse to be compensated upon refusal, they can simply choose to take the games away. Furthermore, the service-only model simply removes your ability to straight-up buy games and own them into the future. So while I can technically play Donkey Kong Country 2 on SNES online, I have no option to buy and keep it on my Switch when the service ends. You simply do not have a means to keep these games. They will disappear, and you cannot do anything to prevent it. 

One might say “Buy physical, you’ll have these games forever!” and fair enough, it “helps”… but it is not enough. I was recently made aware that Scott Pilgrim VS the World, handled by Limited Run Games requires you to have a Ubisoft Connect account to add Knives to the game. This may seem like a small hassle, but what would happen if Nintendo Online or Ubisoft Connect died? It means that any future physical copy owner would be unable to get Knives at all… and this is despite LRG priding themselves on fostering games preservation. The fact is… even physical games are not immune to loss of content. Many games like Xenoblade Chronicles X are “playable” without updates, but suffer without them. This game requires you to download 15 GB of data packs to reduce loading times and improve performance. Yes, you could play Xenoblade Chronicles X… but it would be a heavily-compromised version of it. Some games will not even load without a day 1 patch. Your game just becomes a glorified paper-weight. And that isn’t taking into account the many games that do not have a physical version, or rely on online components to even function. And even if the physical copies had all of the content, if you look at the state of the second-hand market, it’s hardly affordable anymore. It also doesn’t help that some companies like Nintendo feed into this by selling classic games at above MSRP. 

An actual Nintendo listing above MSRP

Then what are our alternatives? There is only one; emulation. Most people will support a developer when they feel like it’s a good deal. Buying from the official source means signaling your interest in the product and future similar products. It also is far more convenient than going around security features, and losing access to key services. Besides, Steam has proven that convenience will convince people to forego piracy. However, with their unwillingness to adopt a Steam model, where games continue to have an enduring library with actual ownership, people’s hands are being forced. Furthermore, modding is an alluring feature that allows everyday people to breathe new life into the games they already own, and can even result in brand new experiences altogether. However, video game providers often try to stifle such endeavors instead of encouraging them. This is akin to telling someone with a broken table that they are not allowed to use another piece of wood to repair one of its broken legs because it wasn’t their piece of wood. It’s like telling someone that they can’t renovate their home because the builder didn’t want you modify their work. If you pay for something, you logically ought to own it and do whatever you want with it. Money exchanged hands. You bought a good, it is yours. Most emulate out of necessity. 

Project M stage list, a competitive game with even a stage-striking feature to aid tournaments go smoothly.

But what about its legality? It’s entirely legal as seen in the videos below:

https://youtu.be/1SMZdUBj0YQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3vWibZ98Xs

 https://youtu.be/N42hFP1vCm0 

Indeed, the art of reverse-engineering is legal. It does mean that one simply cannot steal code, but recreating it… absolutely legal. Examples of how reverse-engineering has occurred in the industry, even from companies that publicly shun it:

https://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/134790/the_secret_history_of_donkey_kong.php

https://youtu.be/5TZn__es1FA 

Granted, some countries like Japan do not make this distinction, but Japan law is not world law. Most western countries allow it, and most emulation is reverse-engineering. Granted, sharing roms is… more contestable, but many could argue that this may be the only way to experience media that has long been-forgotten. There is legally right, and morally right. The right things to do isn’t always what is the legal thing to do.

Companies like Disney have made copyright far too skewed towards IP owners, to the point of insanity. Mickey Mouse will enter public domain after 95 years in 2024, and that’s if Disney doesn’t push lawmakers to extend it: 

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/01/a-whole-years-worth-of-works-just-fell-into-the-public-domain/

While I am not against people being able to leverage their property, the current way that the world works is a problem. On one hand, 95 years to own anything is ridiculous. It stifles creativity and prevents people from building upon what was already created. I am fine with letting companies have exclusive rights to their products for about 5 years, which will be where the bulk of purchases tend to happen. After 5-7 years of initial-release (and even after patches), this specific version of the game doesn’t even have to fall into public domain, but it must at the very least allow for rom-sharing and emulation. Furthermore, any and all fan modifications and works that is not monetized must be protected, and any attempts to take people to court over this must be quashed before lawyers need to be involved. 

Access to justice is a major issue when it comes to copyright law. Due to letting anyone sue anyone, large multi-billion dollars corporations can simply go after individual fans and smaller entities, and whether they are right or wrong, it does not matter. You will eventually capitulate, as you simply cannot compete with their litany of lawyers, and the accruing debt from ever-increasing court costs will get to you. As such, non-commercial use of IPs ought to simply be made legal without a shadow of a doubt. 

Furthermore, I think that offering a rental service is fine, but all games in said service ought to be purchasable separately, and it should be enshrined in law that when a game is no-longer supported, a minimum effort should be made to make the features accessible. Whether it is providing means to download DLC for your physical games, keeping games available into the future digitally, or even enabling games to be connected online through peer to peer connections / custom servers, incentives must be put in place to punish the destruction of art. Even if it is "your art" it doesn't give you the right to take it away after taking money for it. Once money exchanges hands, it becomes a good.

These are extreme measures, but extreme situations demand extreme solutions. We have let things go out of hand, and even our current solutions let certain pieces of art through the cracks. If corporations refuse to do right by consumers, then consumers should demand their rights back and force them into law.

A case for a Kid Icarus Uprising remake:

Kid Icarus Uprising is a game a sequel to the classic Kid Icarus games, which was reimagined as a Star Fox-style flight action shooter with grounded action segments. Its concept as a whole was very appealing, and had an addictive gameplay loop with much replayability. It was a great game, but with flaws that could stand to be corrected.

To me, remakes and remasters benefit games like this. An amazing game that passes the test of time doesn't gain much from being remade, except for being made more accessible to newer players. Alternatively, a terrible game might not even warrant a remake at all. However, it is those games where you can see the untapped potential within the flaws, the diamonds in the rough, which benefit more from them. That is because the developpers can have the benefit of hindsight and consummer feedback.

I remember when I first played Uprising. It was unplayable. I am left-handed, and not the type that can just use a stylus with his right hand and power through. I was absolutely inept, and even dropped my stylus while playing this game. As a response, I bought the Circle Pad Pro accessory, which enabled me to play using my left hand to aim. It did the job on the original 3DS, and despite the stylus controls being far from ideal, I was able to get through the game. Then the XL was released, and I upgraded to it. Unfortunately, this led to a big problem: I needed to buy another Circle Pad Pro to fit the bigger system, but also... it was a lot heavier and clunky to hold a bigger piece of hardware "and" a giant plastic contraption with one hand. It was playable, but not comfortable. But then, the New 3DS XL was released, and I upgraded to that. Now, the problem was even worse. My only option was a little nub that didn't quite cut it as an analogue stick, and no Circle Pad Pro was available for this model. I could not physically play the game anymore.

The previous issue is what happens when software is centered around a specific gimmick (motion controls, gyro, touch controls, etc...) and doesn't offer alternatives. It's an accessibility issue just as much as it is a taste issue. Kid Icarus Uprising was hampered by its control scheme, and prevented people like me from fully enjoying this game. As such, a remake is a chance to make it right and add a twin stick control option. This would allow more people to enjoy the game, and with the added buttons, limitations of the 3DS hardware could be nullified. This is a game with a lot of charm that I want to, and should love. Let me. And for those who didn't mind the weirder controls, they're just getting an upgraded version.

Another angle is the multiplayer. With the many weapon types, and the team-based combat, it's a very solid and fast-paced experience. It was fun, the online is going to shut down, and there is no other way to play it. A remake with perhaps more maps and modes would bring this to new people, and can enhance an already decent multiplayer experiment into something more substantial.

The next angle is pretty straightforward: the game's age is showing when it comes to its visuals. The 3DS already wasn't very cutting edge in that department, and having this on an HD TV would make a game with good artwork and character design have a vehicle to show them in a more flattering light.

Finally, the extras. The game has a lot of collectible weapons with unique attributes, and adding more would be a fun. I've always wanted something silly like Amiibo-based weapons, just because I was Pit swinging fireballs out of the Binding Blade, but there is also much more that can be done. New challenges, extra chapters, maybe some featuring playing as characters like Magnus during the time Pit was out of commission for instances. Maybe add new heroes and vilains in the multiplayer mode. There's much that can be done, and even the base game as it is alone would simply benefit from a fresh coat of paint and the sheer popularity of the Switch.

A remake would be a less risky endeavour than a newer game, and while I think that it would be neat to have a sequel, if it's not in the cards, a remake would be the next best thing for the current fans awaiting something, it would be a boon for people like me who physically could not fully enjoy the game but liked the concept. It would be good for people who didn't even bother because the controls seemed too strange, and it would be a new experience to a lot of new players.

When it comes to 3DS games, it's likely one of the best picks for a remake.