There are plenty of entities, mostly in 0.0, that are entirely elitist when it comes to SP, and have strict SP requirements. The exception to this is of course Goonswarm, but you can't get into that unless you've been a member of the Somethingawful forums for a while. Of course you also have empire corps, which are much less restrictive, but Empire isn't fun unless you like the market or missioning side of the game.
Skill? Skill in eve is fitting/poopsocking, theorycrafting to give you the best chance to do something. Actual combat is all strategy and reaction based. Except large fleet POS warfare, which is pray to the desync/lag gods, roll the dice and hope things shake out for your side.
Having more SP gives you more options. You can fly a wider range of ships, fit a wider range of gear, and thus be more capable at more situations or be incrementally more capable in a single area or ship class. This is the player as the individual. For groups the dynamics are different, since a large swarm of low-skill ships can be highly effective. This is of course frowned upon by the old elite. LOL, frigate swarm.
And if SP doesn't matter, why not let everyone fly everything on Day 1? Right because then the only grinds are IN GAME. Can't have that, how will the bitter vets feel special?
If everyone in Eve could fly a Titan on day 1, that wouldn't address that Titan's are fucking TOUGH to build. It takes months of effort by entire corporations to assemble the components, and 3 months of RL time to cook the Titan itself. There are plenty of people with titan skills that do not have Titans because of this.
Same with supercaps and other large ships. There are enormous isk investments and time requirements outside the SP system.
Except work in Eve is pay CCP money and switch skills on occasion. That's the work required to hop into a hull/do something. I made 1 billion isk in a 0.0 corp within my first month. My options are to buy a character, or timecard/continue to pay CCP money so my skills train up and I can actually fly things that require anywhere near that kind of cash.
The SP system is fucking retarded, tbqh, and the game manages to be decent in spite of it. It'd be nice as backup/passive training, but not being able to do anything in-game to speed up the process of getting into that next hull discourages even logging in unless you've already found a niche you enjoy. Tackling on large fleet ops is fun. Shooting POS/ratting you can do pretty competently relatively quickly, so there are options, but you get relatively good pretty quickly and then are left staring at an enormous IRL time skill switching grind.
That's not work. There is no work to gain skills in Eve. You gain them at a fixed rate according to your attributes, and that's IT. It fosters an environment of elitism because if you start RIGHT NOW, you will never, ever have as many SP as I do, and I in turn will never have as much SP as people who started before me.
For instance, I fly covops atm, working towards recons and dictors. I have a production/research alt and a mining alt. The only thing stopping me from flying that stuff now isn't not putting work into "earning it" it's not having had my character long enough to rack up enough SP to be able to step into the hull and fit it properly. Cruiser V is an almost month long grind. I can reduce that a bit by spending lotsa cash on implants, but not by an enormous margin. I can even avoid having to do RL work to pay my account fee, or in-game work to earn isk to timecard, by just setting the skill and cancelling my account, and resubbing when the skill is finished.
When you set the expectations at the level of destroying Nintendo's handheld dominance, yes, 26 million is tanking.
Then we have software sales. For having 26 million units out there, the software for it sells pathetically. If it weren't for the PS2, no one would be making games for the thing anymore.
I always thought they made a huge mistake releasing Okami on the PS2, where it just kinda got drowned out. It would've probably done much better on the Gamecube.
If they port it well enough and quick enough, it may get some of the respect it deserves.
What does software have to do with hardware? The Gamecube hardware was awesome. It was the cheapest to produce, 2nd easiest to code for, and 2nd most powerful hardware of its generation. Its optical drive pretty much made it have 0 load times. It had a network adapter, no one really used it, but that's not the hardware's fault.
It was top-loading(like the slimline PS2 which followed) and couldn't play DVDs. Man, what a piece of shit.
More the age base and US-centric nature of the site versus the rest of the gaming community. The majority of slashdot are NES/Atari era people, so there's a softspot(or if not console-based, PCs) towards what you grew up on. The majority of the rest of the gaming community are playstation, or xbox era.
The gamecube was a work of art design wise compared to either of it's competitors. I don't see why you'd call it crummy.
Also CLIs/shells are just better for remote/server work, and features at the expense of performance and bug fixes have always bothered computer users.
You'll also never be able to enjoy the original Star Wars trilogy in HD. You'll never see, for example, most of the MST3K series ever released in HD, nor will you see a large chunk of cult classic TV like Dr. Who. And you only have a handful of channels to watch(atm I believe I have 15).
People who think like that have something seriously wrong with them.
Games are about gameplay, not graphics, not audio. Anyone not of that opinion is simply wrong.
Yup. Apart from Dead Rising, there really isn't much on the platform, well that isn't/wouldn't be better on the PC. It's everything that was on the XBox... but prettier. That's better than the PS3 can say though. I keep trying to find a reason to pick one up, and there's just nothing there.
I'm pretty happy with the gameplay variety I've gotten on my Wii so far.
It didn't hurt them the first two times they did this, with the original playstation, in the US at least.
Remember, the original playstation controller had no analog sticks. The second controller they introduced had analog sticks, but no rumble. The third controller they released was the dual shock.
No it won't, but if you put it together right, it'll perform better then the consoles for the rest of *their* lives, and it has an upgrade path. If you place such a premium on visuals a console isn't a viable option *anyway* since you can always get a PC to outperform it, even at release, if cost isn't a concern.
Yes, I much prefer to buy a non-deductable $350 piece of equipment every 4 years that *will* break, versus an $800 piece of equipment every 4 years that comes with a display, does many other tasks(some of which I require not as a matter of leisure), has superior game depth, controls, resolution and graphics compared to the $350 piece of hardware and can be amortized over it's lifetime on my taxes.
Also the games are $10 cheaper... for some reason, and mods are free.
The analog sticks being in the position there in has nothing to do with ergonomics and everything to do with the fact they were tacked onto what was effectively an SNES controller with extended grips.
Which is precisely why the classic controller for the Wii has them in the same place.
Ok so we have a bunch of games that would be and will be better on the PC, especially if they weren't catering to the 360 crowd, and a bunch of ho-hum stuff with a few bright spots in it.
Man, I'm excited, I can't wait to see how easy they make Fallout 3 so the console demographic can play it(see also: Bioshock).
If you play an RTS or a sequel to a classic PC game(such as Fallout 3) on a console, you should be shot.
Well it depends on what you want to do. You can be useful in PvP within a few days from start, or be able to fly a hulk(top-tier mining barge) within two months, an inty in a few weeks, a ratting raven in a month.
I don't like that there's basically no way to catch up, but meh, it's not a horrible game for it.
Slashdot Mirror
There are plenty of entities, mostly in 0.0, that are entirely elitist when it comes to SP, and have strict SP requirements. The exception to this is of course Goonswarm, but you can't get into that unless you've been a member of the Somethingawful forums for a while. Of course you also have empire corps, which are much less restrictive, but Empire isn't fun unless you like the market or missioning side of the game.
Skill? Skill in eve is fitting/poopsocking, theorycrafting to give you the best chance to do something. Actual combat is all strategy and reaction based. Except large fleet POS warfare, which is pray to the desync/lag gods, roll the dice and hope things shake out for your side.
Having more SP gives you more options. You can fly a wider range of ships, fit a wider range of gear, and thus be more capable at more situations or be incrementally more capable in a single area or ship class. This is the player as the individual. For groups the dynamics are different, since a large swarm of low-skill ships can be highly effective. This is of course frowned upon by the old elite. LOL, frigate swarm.
And if SP doesn't matter, why not let everyone fly everything on Day 1? Right because then the only grinds are IN GAME. Can't have that, how will the bitter vets feel special?
If everyone in Eve could fly a Titan on day 1, that wouldn't address that Titan's are fucking TOUGH to build. It takes months of effort by entire corporations to assemble the components, and 3 months of RL time to cook the Titan itself. There are plenty of people with titan skills that do not have Titans because of this.
Same with supercaps and other large ships. There are enormous isk investments and time requirements outside the SP system.
The SP system is fucking stupid.
Except work in Eve is pay CCP money and switch skills on occasion. That's the work required to hop into a hull/do something. I made 1 billion isk in a 0.0 corp within my first month. My options are to buy a character, or timecard/continue to pay CCP money so my skills train up and I can actually fly things that require anywhere near that kind of cash.
The SP system is fucking retarded, tbqh, and the game manages to be decent in spite of it. It'd be nice as backup/passive training, but not being able to do anything in-game to speed up the process of getting into that next hull discourages even logging in unless you've already found a niche you enjoy. Tackling on large fleet ops is fun. Shooting POS/ratting you can do pretty competently relatively quickly, so there are options, but you get relatively good pretty quickly and then are left staring at an enormous IRL time skill switching grind.
That's not work. There is no work to gain skills in Eve. You gain them at a fixed rate according to your attributes, and that's IT. It fosters an environment of elitism because if you start RIGHT NOW, you will never, ever have as many SP as I do, and I in turn will never have as much SP as people who started before me.
For instance, I fly covops atm, working towards recons and dictors. I have a production/research alt and a mining alt. The only thing stopping me from flying that stuff now isn't not putting work into "earning it" it's not having had my character long enough to rack up enough SP to be able to step into the hull and fit it properly. Cruiser V is an almost month long grind. I can reduce that a bit by spending lotsa cash on implants, but not by an enormous margin. I can even avoid having to do RL work to pay my account fee, or in-game work to earn isk to timecard, by just setting the skill and cancelling my account, and resubbing when the skill is finished.
When you set the expectations at the level of destroying Nintendo's handheld dominance, yes, 26 million is tanking.
Then we have software sales. For having 26 million units out there, the software for it sells pathetically. If it weren't for the PS2, no one would be making games for the thing anymore.
You forgot Advance Wars.
Oh and everything that was on the GBA.
I always thought they made a huge mistake releasing Okami on the PS2, where it just kinda got drowned out. It would've probably done much better on the Gamecube.
If they port it well enough and quick enough, it may get some of the respect it deserves.
Yea, created by the PC community. There are already additional portal and TF2 maps out on the PC.
If you wanted the content of that community, you should've gotten the version that was part of that community. Fuck the 360.
No, but I've also never seen a movie get knocked 2 stars for being filmed on super 8, or for being subtitled. So....
And X-Play sucks.
Most game reviews are written for idiots.
There is no game review culture.
No you said originally, and I quote, "Nintendo's simplier/crummier but more purpose-focused hardware" which implies the hardware sucks. And it didn't.
I happen to disagree about the software, but that's a matter of opinion.
What does software have to do with hardware? The Gamecube hardware was awesome. It was the cheapest to produce, 2nd easiest to code for, and 2nd most powerful hardware of its generation. Its optical drive pretty much made it have 0 load times. It had a network adapter, no one really used it, but that's not the hardware's fault.
It was top-loading(like the slimline PS2 which followed) and couldn't play DVDs. Man, what a piece of shit.
More the age base and US-centric nature of the site versus the rest of the gaming community. The majority of slashdot are NES/Atari era people, so there's a softspot(or if not console-based, PCs) towards what you grew up on. The majority of the rest of the gaming community are playstation, or xbox era.
The gamecube was a work of art design wise compared to either of it's competitors. I don't see why you'd call it crummy.
Also CLIs/shells are just better for remote/server work, and features at the expense of performance and bug fixes have always bothered computer users.
You'll also never be able to enjoy the original Star Wars trilogy in HD. You'll never see, for example, most of the MST3K series ever released in HD, nor will you see a large chunk of cult classic TV like Dr. Who. And you only have a handful of channels to watch(atm I believe I have 15).
People who think like that have something seriously wrong with them.
Games are about gameplay, not graphics, not audio. Anyone not of that opinion is simply wrong.
Yup. Apart from Dead Rising, there really isn't much on the platform, well that isn't/wouldn't be better on the PC. It's everything that was on the XBox... but prettier. That's better than the PS3 can say though. I keep trying to find a reason to pick one up, and there's just nothing there.
I'm pretty happy with the gameplay variety I've gotten on my Wii so far.
Correct, it does not get PC ports.
I'd chalk that up as a good thing though, personally.
It's the PS3. It's a failure. The 360 is a failure as well.
Console gaming is NOT about power, it's about value. If you want power you go for the PC.
Own a PS3? Sad loser. Betamax owner. Fucking idiot. Whatever moniker you like.
Enjoy.
Feel free to pay $60 for it.
Oh, but wait, you bought a PS3, you're already an idiot.
I wonder if that be combined with Sharp's 3D Parallax LCD tech? Because that would be cool as hell.
It didn't hurt them the first two times they did this, with the original playstation, in the US at least.
Remember, the original playstation controller had no analog sticks. The second controller they introduced had analog sticks, but no rumble. The third controller they released was the dual shock.
No it won't, but if you put it together right, it'll perform better then the consoles for the rest of *their* lives, and it has an upgrade path. If you place such a premium on visuals a console isn't a viable option *anyway* since you can always get a PC to outperform it, even at release, if cost isn't a concern.
Yes, I much prefer to buy a non-deductable $350 piece of equipment every 4 years that *will* break, versus an $800 piece of equipment every 4 years that comes with a display, does many other tasks(some of which I require not as a matter of leisure), has superior game depth, controls, resolution and graphics compared to the $350 piece of hardware and can be amortized over it's lifetime on my taxes.
Also the games are $10 cheaper... for some reason, and mods are free.
My, what a value.
The analog sticks being in the position there in has nothing to do with ergonomics and everything to do with the fact they were tacked onto what was effectively an SNES controller with extended grips.
Which is precisely why the classic controller for the Wii has them in the same place.
Ok so we have a bunch of games that would be and will be better on the PC, especially if they weren't catering to the 360 crowd, and a bunch of ho-hum stuff with a few bright spots in it.
Man, I'm excited, I can't wait to see how easy they make Fallout 3 so the console demographic can play it(see also: Bioshock).
If you play an RTS or a sequel to a classic PC game(such as Fallout 3) on a console, you should be shot.
Unfortunately, you can thank the XBox for all but killing the PC.
Well it depends on what you want to do. You can be useful in PvP within a few days from start, or be able to fly a hulk(top-tier mining barge) within two months, an inty in a few weeks, a ratting raven in a month.
I don't like that there's basically no way to catch up, but meh, it's not a horrible game for it.