Quoting: NotYourRealName

Quoting: slaapliedje

Quoting: NotYourRealName

Quoting: devnullThis isn't Life is Strange where left/alt left liberal correctly fits the games narrative. It's literally about battling robots.

But there is gender diversity out in the real world and (a lot of) science fiction. The maker of the original Battletech himself is heavily involved in the development of this game, so it can be as nuanced as he wants it to be. Most people have gotten over the fact that these people exist and are prevalent through our society and media. Their appearance doesn't signal that their gender identity needs to be addressed or discussed (nor encapsulate specific political leanings).

Why do we need to be constantly coddled in some white male heterosexual power fantasy? Surely that's the "agenda pushing" here as it's scope is narrower and message more specific.

See, that's the problem here though. Yes, I'm a white male. Do I think I'm special because of that? No. But I am tired of being called racist, misogynist, bigoted, etc just because I was born white and with man bits. We're now in a place in society where people are leaving open source projects because they are implementing codes of conduct which make them fear of potentially offending someone, we should probably step back for a moment and rethink what we're doing to each other. https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=LLVM-Rafael-Espindola [External Link]

It's reverse bigotry. "I'm so oppressed, white people all hate me, I'm so picked on." Face it, we're all assholes to each other. We just got to be not assholes enough so we don't kill each other.

As far as gender diversity being out there? For mankind you have Male/Female. Then Male that wants/thinks/is becoming female and you have female that wants/thinks/is becoming male. Let's just say 0 all the way to 1. It's Still binary, but with varying 0.x to 1 in between. I suggest we could just refer to each other as She/He/It. But you know that'll get shortened to SHIT. So when referring to mankind, I think I will just call them all SHITS and go on with my day. :)

I'm a white male too. No one is calling us racist, misogynistic or bigoted because of this. Whoever has (apparently) done that is guilty of being both sexist and racist. I've heard this repeatedly bought up by right wing critics who try to straw-man arguments for inclusivity.

I've heard of that open source code of conduct, and I do wonder what particular passages are so repugnant that would cause them to leave the project. I've never had any problems myself & the codes seem largely natural and sensible.

You see, it's not reverse bigotry. They want the same thing as you (i.e. not making assumptions about you based on factors they have no control over). I'm sorry you have such a depressing view on humanity. I find that people are largely helpful and understanding to one another despite the vocal minority trying to convince us otherwise.

Well, when there are companies who are hiring people because of their race or gender and not based on their skill level because 'we have too many white males here' (and yes, this is a thing that's happening apparently), it is basically bigotry, right? I believe some developers of FreeBSD left after they instituted the code of conduct as well. Forced diversity is dumb, and against anti-discriminatory laws.

A friend of mine said the company he works for had a higher management person comment that there were too many white people in the office he works at. How's that for reverse bigotry?

I'd agree with people largely being helpful and understanding. And being we're fans of gaming on Linux, we sort of know how vocal a minority can be :) Unfortunately some vocal minority groups are annoying the majority. Maybe that's the perspective of the people who game on Windows too? "We don't want those filthy Linux users playing games with us, don't port!" Or something..

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Guest

Quoting: slaapliedjeSee, that's the problem here though. Yes, I'm a white male. Do I think I'm special because of that? No. But I am tired of being called racist, misogynist, bigoted, etc just because I was born white and with man bits. We're now in a place in society where people are leaving open source projects because they are implementing codes of conduct which make them fear of potentially offending someone, we should probably step back for a moment and rethink what we're doing to each other. https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=LLVM-Rafael-Espindola [External Link]

Don't trust what that site reports. Always go to the source and read it for yourself. The reason for Raphael quitting was not fear of offence, it was basically because there was a forced political inclusion code of conduct at all. The community used to be just focused on the technical side and stayed away from politics.

Yeah, my point was that it builds an environment of fear of being able to communicate without offending someone. Not that that was the reason Rafael left.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: NotYourRealName

Quoting: devnullThis isn't Life is Strange where left/alt left liberal correctly fits the games narrative. It's literally about battling robots.

But there is gender diversity out in the real world and (a lot of) science fiction. The maker of the original Battletech himself is heavily involved in the development of this game, so it can be as nuanced as he wants it to be. Most people have gotten over the fact that these people exist and are prevalent through our society and media. Their appearance doesn't signal that their gender identity needs to be addressed or discussed (nor encapsulate specific political leanings).

Why do we need to be constantly coddled in some white male heterosexual power fantasy? Surely that's the "agenda pushing" here as it's scope is narrower and message more specific.

See, that's the problem here though. Yes, I'm a white male. Do I think I'm special because of that? No. But I am tired of being called racist, misogynist, bigoted, etc just because I was born white and with man bits. We're now in a place in society where people are leaving open source projects because they are implementing codes of conduct which make them fear of potentially offending someone, we should probably step back for a moment and rethink what we're doing to each other. https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=LLVM-Rafael-Espindola [External Link]

It's reverse bigotry. "I'm so oppressed, white people all hate me, I'm so picked on." Face it, we're all assholes to each other. We just got to be not assholes enough so we don't kill each other.

As far as gender diversity being out there? For mankind you have Male/Female. Then Male that wants/thinks/is becoming female and you have female that wants/thinks/is becoming male. Let's just say 0 all the way to 1. It's Still binary, but with varying 0.x to 1 in between. I suggest we could just refer to each other as She/He/It. But you know that'll get shortened to SHIT. So when referring to mankind, I think I will just call them all SHITS and go on with my day. :)

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Patola

Quoting: slaapliedjeWhat? I knew about homosexual animals, I also know those are mutations (yes Dawkins himself said so in the video you linked. The "Pirate" is your mutation there. I'm not saying it's a bad thing, I'm saying that's just the way it is, and that yes some animals are bi, some are gay, but if there weren't a large portion of them that were straight/bi they would die off, right? Like literally no one would be reproducing and the species would have no progenitors.

Wow. You've got your biology all wrong again. It seems you are not understanding. Let me try and explain: homo, bi and transsexuality have been verified as ubiquitous phenotypes in virtually all mammals. That means they are ancient and appeared even before mammals themselves. What's more, they have an enormous variety of manifestations and uses, and are associated to a large amount of different reproductive strategies.

That, alone, completely invalidates calling any of these things a "mutation". They are complex, they are often very specific, and they are impossible to appear in one generation. They take eons to evolve and take form. Genetically, they are composed of many genes acting simultaneously in a specific environment and population, and sometimes helped by epigenetics.

So, when you try to shift the perspective to "heterosexual+cis" for animals and try to characterize other strategies as a "mutation", it doesn't work. It is just absurd. Things are not this way. And while nothing in science can be said as definitively "proven", the evidence for the necessary presence of homo, bi and transexuality in animals is so overwhelming that it is unreasonable to argue otherwise. Specially if you try to argue otherwise with no hard data to present. You're just talking out of nothing, with not even a single scientific citation. You haven't even looked at my citations to respond to them. If these phenomena are occasional, how come so superior species are thoroughly described in Bruce Bagemihl's book? If it is just a fluke, how come he got so many photographs of large groups of animals consistently doing those things?

I'm pretty sure you're arguing just to argue here. Dawkins himself referred to them as a mutation. But that these were necessary for evolution. "An individual could then mutate" In all of the metaphor that he uses here explains reproduction within species quiet well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUxt--mMjwA [External Link]

Quoting: PatolaNow, let's get on to "literally no one would be reproducing and the species would have no progenitors". I specifically addressed this point two times. But I can say more. This is simply not true. If you don't even know what the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium and Ka/Ks is, you shouldn't really try to give an opinion: these are basics of population genetics, a hugely complicated field of biology with equations that precisely calculate the odds and reproductive output, beating any opinionated feeling about the matter. And they show that you are utterly wrong, because reproductive strategies are not straightforward. They sometimes involve copies of genes in relatives. They sometimes gain reproductive advantages through indirect means. They sometimes carry an opportunist feature that might not work every time, but when it works it offsets the failures by a large margin, and become largely adaptive. They sometimes work in balance with phenotypes designated by other genes, like the Evolutionary Stable Strategy I mentioned. Yes, it's a constant struggle to try and put these variables in equations, but it is doable - and then the numbers match the experimental data, showing that non-obvious reproductive strategies actually provide an edge to the species. It is difficult to explain because there are lots of cases, and each one has its own way of grinding that extra percentage points to the gene to get it in the next generations, and extracting the evolutionary pressure and advantages of just one of these usually might take at least decades of research. These are done by sociobiology (in the case of animals in general) and evolutionary psychology (in the specific case of hominins like us). There are lots of weird aspects to these matters, like why female spotted hyenas have erectable penises even though they greatly encumber copulation and pregnancy and the subtle social rewards, bonding and pacts of sex in primate species. None of these aspects could be dismissed by "mutation" or "error" or "mistake", again, they are complex traces which show the typical complexity and "illusion of design" of ages-long adaptations.

I never said that a mutation was an error. While mutation has a negative feel about it, it shouldn't in the mind of evolution, if it weren't for mutations in evolution... well evolution would not be a thing. Evolution doesn't work without it.

Mammals in general need a male and female to reproduce, this is fact. This is part of what makes them mammals. Though I guess chemically we've done this? https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4909-virgin-birth-mammal-rewrites-rules-of-biology/ [External Link]

Quoting: slaapliedjeThere was a video with Bill Nye where he discusses Bonobos, and he mentions a book that specifies that they being homosexual was more common within zoos or captivity.

Quoting: PatolaThat is a possible methodological failure of some studies which gauged homo and bisexuality in bonobos, true. However, it has not been settled. It still an ongoing investigation. And not all bonobo studies are with captive animals. Many are field studies. But there's more. Even if all the studies were made with captive bonobos, there are things that could not be simply explained by saying that they are more prone to heterosexuality in the wild. The homo and bisexual behavior exhibits a large amount of specific characteristics to clearly distinguish it from heterosexual behavior; where do these come from? They are shown to be instinctive and inherited; how did these instincts appear? The answer is, they did evolve because although the frequency in the wild might be different from captivity, the evolutionary history of the species had evolutionary pressure for these mating tactics to appear.

This book had a large field study and one in zoos. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohFOHvcTC6I [External Link]

Quoting: slaapliedjeSo tell me, let's say a plane with a sports team crashes on a deserted island. They spend 10 years there, bonding and surviving and living off the land. Eventually maybe they decide they need to let off some testosterone and start homosexual acts. This is pretty much their only course outside a wank here and there, or pure abstinence. Now let's say they come back to civilization, pretty sure there'd still be jerks that said they could have held out for 10 years..

Quoting: PatolaNow you're antropomorphizing animals to advance your point. It's not how this works. Biology is not a matter of feelings or comparing animals to humans, specially if you trying to analyze evolutionary history which makes such feelings and instincts appear on the first place. A male could be a surrogate for a female and there is a small set of situations where it is indeed the cause for homosexual acts in humans; the testosterone needs to be channeled, the energy needs to be spent, and e.g. in prisons this is indeed common. It might even be the seed for the appearance of certain homo, bi and/or transexual adaptation in our evolutionary past. But this is one of a large amount of cases in humans that does not automatically translate to animal behavior, and could have a varied number of different evolutionary outcomes. Take into account that even in our species, there is a large numbers of homosexual preferences, like males who prefer masculine males, others who prefer feminine males, females who shift their orientation through time according to the environment, and the likes. Usually, every different preference is an evolved intuitive strategy that comes from diverse origins. There is no single "mutation" that accounts for complex behaviors for something so strictly evolved as sexuality.

I'm not trying to anthropomorphize anything. I'm putting forth the situation where, because we have evolved the way we are, that if there was an island of all males, we would simply die off, because humanity as it stands needs both genders to propagate the species. Maybe one day in the far future we'll be like the Goobacks from South Park, where there is no gender and we all reproduce asexually or within labs.

Quoting: slaapliedjeLet's say they happen to luck out and somehow they had crashed on an island, but there were wars everywhere else and mankind had completely wiped each other out. So here's one team of all guys on a deserted island. Guess what? That's an evolutionary dead end. This is why there is no such thing as heteronormative. It's REQUIRED by evolution to actually BE ABLE to evolve! It doesn't matter if people have evolved and some of them have homosexual tendencies (I agree with the spectrum, people aren't 100% gay or 100% straight.)

This is why I say that homosexual/bisexual tendencies ARE an evolutionary thing. Apparently you missed me saying that in my other post. I said that it's an evolutionary thing due to overpopulation in a confined area. As per the Bonobos in a zoo being more likely to be homosexual than ones out in the wild.

Quoting: PatolaMaybe you are talking about the Mouse Utopia [External Link] experiment, where indeed in an overpopulation setting the homosexual behavior of the population increased (specially in females). But I sorta missed your point here.

My point was as an evolutionary thing, I think it's built into the DNA of multiple species to handle over population by handling the birth gender/sexuality of it's members. So much of this discussion though has tried to separate humans from other animals. We're just like them, we just have cooler toys.

Quoting: slaapliedjeHell, with some of my previous hetero relationships, I'd rather go gay then have another like that!

Quoting: PatolaDon't antropomorphize. We are not discussing change of preferences in a human being's lifetime. We are discussing evolution and the appearance and evolution of homo, bi and transsexual traits. This is what allows or constrains the preferences to exist, these are the ultimate explanation.

Why is change of preference not an evolutionary thing as well, or even the possibility of one. As per my earlier all-male deserted island scenario. It's just as situational as it is evolutionary. Hell, evolution pretty much IS situational. Creature lives in habitat A, and survives there, but when that habitat starts to degrade and become unlivable (by whatever means), then either that species dies, or it evolves so it can move to habitat B, and so on.

Quoting: slaapliedjeBUT (all caps!) the reason for this discussion is the completely unnecessary inclusion of non-gendered people (yup, that's what I'm calling anyone who doesn't fit the yin/yang, pick one, don't be greedy like bisexuals.) in video games. Okay, let's say some science fiction writer starts writing a book now, and includes people of ambiguous sexuality/gender, and it becomes this huge hit and everyone's cool with it.

Quoting: PatolaI've cut the rest of your comment, because it is something we can agree with. I am not only annoyed by all this Social Justice ideology, I do legitimately fear it as the new type of censorship, oppression and tyranny. So, as I said, I am only mildly annoyed by the Battletech inclusion of "they" as a valid singular pronoun, but I am quite worried of this trend as a larger deterrent to free expression, and I wouldn't like to see it win at the end of the day.

Funny thing is, I think we're both agreeing on the same thing, we're just using different terms to define what we're talking about. :P

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Patola

Quoting: slaapliedjeHere's the thing about all of those species, it's population control for them to evolve with any homosexual tendencies. If heterosexual mating is required to reproduce, then by the natures of law it is required that the species be hetero/bisexual at the very least, correct? Just because a few of them or even large quantities are being homosexual, doesn't necessitate that the species still has to have some heterosexual activity to propagate the species. And yes, there are species that just change genders on the fly due to the needs of the gene pool.

Dude, you didn't even previously know about homosexual animals, and now you already got an explanation for the phenomena? For all the hundreds of thoroughly documented species, with all the quite different cases and strategies? For all the intrincate courtship rituals, for all the life-long bondings, for all the complex mating behaviors and preferences, for all the promiscuity and celibacy of the individuals, for all the coupling dynamics, for all the hormonal and brain conformations, for all the reproduction results? And for all the very diverse results of thousands of papers published? NO, YOU DON'T. And what you said makes even less sense: There is no such thing as "population control". Evolution never works "for the good of the species", because if one individual sacrifices himself for the species, the "sacrifice behavior" gene does not succeed, and it is eliminated from the gene pool (and since many rival alleles exist on the gene pool of the larger population, the copies of the gene on relatives do not succeed at a higher rate). This hypothesis, a form of group selection, was completely refuted in the 50's with lots of theory, calculations from population genetics and experiments, you are more than sixty years late. BTW, the famous lemmings documentary was a hoax.

Besides, the scientists which design these experiments are not retards. The first thing they want to check is whether it is a proper adaptation or collateral effect of other adaptations and/or constraints. Almost all experiments, field studies and research are designed to take this into consideration and eliminate (or ascertain) this possibility.

So, I will say it clearly: homosexuality, bisexuality and transexuality are, in almost all cases where this was settled, proper adaptations. And to the point that it is an irreductible feature of most species -- and, again, even majority of the population in some.

Sorry but you need a better understanding of Evolution. I urge you to read books like the Selfish Gene by Professor Dawkins for a good introduction to the subject.

What? I knew about homosexual animals, I also know those are mutations (yes Dawkins himself said so in the video you linked. The "Pirate" is your mutation there. I'm not saying it's a bad thing, I'm saying that's just the way it is, and that yes some animals are bi, some are gay, but if there weren't a large portion of them that were straight/bi they would die off, right? Like literally no one would be reproducing and the species would have no progenitors.

There was a video with Bill Nye where he discusses Bonobos, and he mentions a book that specifies that they being homosexual was more common within zoos or captivity. So tell me, let's say a plane with a sports team crashes on a deserted island. They spend 10 years there, bonding and surviving and living off the land. Eventually maybe they decide they need to let off some testosterone and start homosexual acts. This is pretty much their only course outside a wank here and there, or pure abstinence. Now let's say they come back to civilization, pretty sure there'd still be jerks that said they could have held out for 10 years..

Let's say they happen to luck out and somehow they had crashed on an island, but there were wars everywhere else and mankind had completely wiped each other out. So here's one team of all guys on a deserted island. Guess what? That's an evolutionary dead end. This is why there is no such thing as heteronormative. It's REQUIRED by evolution to actually BE ABLE to evolve! It doesn't matter if people have evolved and some of them have homosexual tendencies (I agree with the spectrum, people aren't 100% gay or 100% straight.)

This is why I say that homosexual/bisexual tendencies ARE an evolutionary thing. Apparently you missed me saying that in my other post. I said that it's an evolutionary thing due to overpopulation in a confined area. As per the Bonobos in a zoo being more likely to be homosexual than ones out in the wild.

Hell, with some of my previous hetero relationships, I'd rather go gay then have another like that!

BUT (all caps!) the reason for this discussion is the completely unnecessary inclusion of non-gendered people (yup, that's what I'm calling anyone who doesn't fit the yin/yang, pick one, don't be greedy like bisexuals.) in video games. Okay, let's say some science fiction writer starts writing a book now, and includes people of ambiguous sexuality/gender, and it becomes this huge hit and everyone's cool with it.

Suddenly there is a change in society (like some huge new religious cult, or whatever, could happen even in this 'age of reason') and anyone who isn't strictly male and female are killed at 10 because of a requirement of population control (say 100 years after hypothetical sci-fi series was completed) and then they start forcing out all of the 'they' in the series.

Oh wait, this already has happened with people wanting to remove the 'N' word out of all the Mark Twain books! It's already happening with new writers making Sulu gay (even though George Takei was for a gay character in Star Trek, but disapproved because Sulu was supposed to be straight, in his swashbuckling awesomeness.)

This is my complaint, when current social trends dictate what should be and overwrites or stamps over their thoughts on what the original writers had conceived.

It's up there with people saying Jesus was black, or a woman, etc. I say he was Hispanic, but that's for another discussion ;P

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Ehvis

Quoting: slaapliedje[I run my own IRC server if we want to go that route. Not sure how many people use IRC these days though...

Since whole Twitch is run over IRC, that should be quite a few. :D

Ha, I can honestly say I've only ever watched any twitch because of accidentally clicking on it on this site.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Patola

Quoting: slaapliedjeEarlier today I was reading some article about how Vulcans are racist, sexist and homophobic... Not even sure why I was reading it, but I learned a new word. Heteronormative... wtf? Uhm, sorry how is that even a word? The normal state of being for any creature, animal, etc is heterosexual. It's part of evolution, a species wouldn't have lasted this long if it weren't.

Sorry, I am not with the SJW crowd, but what you've said is just plainly wrong, biologically and scientifically.There are now about more than three decades of solid research (thousands, if not tens of thousands of peer-reviewed papers) showing variations in expressions of sexuality in virtually every animal species, and I am not talking about hermaphroditism in fishes or the weird sex changes of reptiles, but of mammalians and birds. Sexual strategies varies a lot amongst species, and in most species there are almost always cases for which not being strictly heterosexual and "cis" (sorry, I don't like this word but there is transexuality involved too) pays off, in some of them it pays even for the majority of the population, and in some cases even exclusive homosexuality with no offspring can pay off because you might help other copies of your genes succeed. There is one thing in Evolution called Evolutionary Stable Strategy [External Link] which helps a single species develop varied ways of living and reproducing, and that includes variations in sexual orientation and mating tactics.

I can cite lots of references that to you (I have a masters degree in biology), but I think the easiest would be the 1998's book Biological Exuberance by Bruce Bagemihl (which although rich in pictures and examples lacks in evolutionary explanations), and the deep book Animal Homosexuality: A Biosocial Perspective from Aldo Poiani.

Here's the thing about all of those species, it's population control for them to evolve with any homosexual tendencies. If heterosexual mating is required to reproduce, then by the natures of law it is required that the species be hetero/bisexual at the very least, correct? Just because a few of them or even large quantities are being homosexual, doesn't necessitate that the species still has to have some heterosexual activity to propagate the species. And yes, there are species that just change genders on the fly due to the needs of the gene pool.

Is that same thing happening to mankind? Maybe. We have weird social rules, unlike the Bonobo who just go off with whomever they like! Either way, a species needs to be able to procreate to survive.

Our species is clearly evolving due to longer lifespans, successful birth rate is higher, etc. We used to have the occasional plague happen to thin the numbers, but that hasn't happened for a long time.

I have nothing against gay people, I have nothing against anyone being whatever the hell they want to be. I just don't like it being constantly shoved in my face.

By the way, I'm fairly certain the main reason homosexuality was deemed so evil for so long is due to the latter days of the Roman empire. Earlier ones certainly embraced it, but with Christianity becoming the the main religion ~300AD, when they formulated the 'official' bible, I'm sure is when most of it was set in stone. Both Greek and Roman culture was fine with it before. Oddly that's also around the time the Dark Ages started, to be fair.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: liamdawe

Quoting: mortigarIt's a fun game, you can blow stuff up.
Glad it's getting a port at all.
Shame there are so many sour people around.

Basically my thoughts.

I rarely get into these discussions, as they always turn sour very quickly. The way I see it though: Does an option like this stop other people paying it how they want to? That's the question that should matter, from what I've read and seen, it doesn't affect the gameplay in any way, so I just don't get why it's an issue for some.

Obviously all opinions welcome here, this is my own personal opinion, just keep it as respectful as you all can.

Earlier today I was reading some article about how Vulcans are racist, sexist and homophobic... Not even sure why I was reading it, but I learned a new word. Heteronormative... wtf? Uhm, sorry how is that even a word? The normal state of being for any creature, animal, etc is heterosexual. It's part of evolution, a species wouldn't have lasted this long if it weren't.

Also it tried to say that just because Spock was more comfortable hanging out with dudes, that means he must be gay. It was pretty ridiculous. This was after arguing that he saw all women as illogical emotional messes because he grew up with his human mother. If you were a Vulcan in his situation, you'd probably rather hang with your buds as well.

This stamping onto Sci-Fi settings of current political or social climate is what's bothering me. Like the whole thing with them showing that Sulu has always been gay in the new Star Trek movies, just because the actor who played him originally was. Even George Takei was not thrilled about them doing that.

This is Battletech, which while not as well known as something like Star Trek, has a full history and timeline, and am pretty sure none of it is filled with pronouns.

The silly thing is, if 'they' would stop throwing it in everyone's faces, we'd ignore them like we ignore each other. The attention grab is what keeps them going. I watched some video a while back where someone was trying to argue that there were more than two genders, and they said that if someone didn't address them by their chosen pronoun (which the person never did) then it's an 'assault'. It was pretty ridiculous.

Anyhow, I'll still buy the game, I'll just ignore and/or find a mod for proper pronouns :P

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: razing32

Quoting: slaapliedje

Quoting: Zlopez

Quoting: RichieEBHow is the multiplayer for Linux users, is it usually active at all or enough there in the previous TW games. Planning on getting TW Warhammer anyone know how the multiplayer is like on there?

The TW Warhammer is very nice TW game, but I never played the multiplayer. I doesn't have any friend to play with who owns this on linux and on wine it is unplayable.

I don't have any friends either. :P Er, I mean yeah no one I know really games on Linux besides me. So when they have broken cross-platform play, it's really annoying. Guess we should have a regular Linux Gamers WAN party, right?

I actually wonder if we could all congregate somewhere . Discord / IRC / Mumble - whatever. And if one of us wants to play a game , another can join.

I run my own IRC server if we want to go that route. Not sure how many people use IRC these days though...

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Guest

Quoting: slaapliedje

Quoting: Guest

Quoting: slaapliedjeControllers through the years....

Starting with the NES. Which went B>A

Go figure, the Master System had 1(Start) > 2

So otherwise Nintendo has always been wrong?

What are you on about? I only said that it (button layout) started with the NES.

So for what it's worth.
NES 1983
Master system 1985

Nintendo can't get wrong what they invented.

Are you actually arguing that Nintendo invented lettering their buttons backward? I'm sure it's a result of them being a Japanese company and reading Right to Left. No idea why Atari did that with the Jaguar controller though.

Also for what it's worht;
NES was released in the US in 1985.
Famicom was released July 15th, 1983

Same day as the Sega SG-1000; July 15, 1983.

Though to be fair, the SG-1000 came with a joystick similar to the later released Atari 7800.

Now the only thing Nintendo may have invented was the D-Pad, which up until some little portable games, seems to have been just four directional buttons that were not connected. Much like the Switch Joy-Con is now.

Also, the Famicom controllers look much nicer than the NES ones, which always gave me blisters on my fingers/thumbs. The SMS controller was far superior, with convex instead of concave buttons, plus the D-Pad was 8 directions, so it was much easier to hit the diagonals.

Edit: Apparently the Atari Lynx has them (B) (A) as well!

So Atari started copying Nintendo, guess Microsoft figured it was time to stop.

Also, Nintendo's controllers have historically been rather weird, look at the N64 one!

View this comment - View article - View full comments