Majora's Mask!

[sporkbox]

Sure, if the libraries for doing 2-D are as good as the 3-D.

Well now you're arguing specific implementations. I was arguing theory, all other things being equal. Yes, you can pick a 2D library which handles things better than a 3D library, but for every 2D library it is theoretically possible for a 3D library to do exactly the same things with exactly the same effort with the addition of extra features should you choose to take advantage of them.


I'm still debating your money-causes-stress point in my head though. On the one hand, I understand where you're coming from: even deciding not to spend the money is still some form of effort. At the same time, I'm now visualizing a scenario where you don't decide to not spend the money, you simply don't do it; if I had plans to only spend $10, I go out and do it and, at the end of the trip, discover that I actually had two $10 bills, I have expended no additional energy. Or even a scenario where you know you have two $10, but don't need to think about the second because you had already set your mind on that which only cost $10: you simply have the extra $10 lying around, but if something comes up that requires it you have it available, even if you hadn't started out with a purpose or thought for it.


Anywho, what my mind was working towards with Kaepora Gaebora and I was hoping to get more of his opinions on before he sadly stopped posting was this: "better" must be a subjective word. One thing can only be made better than another based on a set of rules and goals. In some cases, as with games like poker, the rules are well defined and it is quite easy to say one hand is better than another within the bounds of the game. Of course, someone can be playing the game but acting outside the rules of the game: they are cheating, or they wish to lose for some reason, or probably a few other scenarios which would make the "better" hand actually worse (and vice versa). These are not the norm.


Where he and I differed was on that point: whether a sufficiently normal state exists where someone can make some specific points about one thing being better than another and have it be accepted.


Take the money example again. I don't know anyone who honestly believes that two $10 is not better than one $10. Maybe if you start getting into significant quantities, hundreds or thousands or more, you may get some debates, but if you ask random person on the street which they'd rather have, $10 or $20, they will by and large say $20. This is because society (and not just society as a whole, but sub-societies, such as your career, etc...) has established rules and goals which the vast majority accept and work toward that do not need to be expressed: they simply are, whether you've thought about them or not. It is better to eat than to not eat. It is better to not kill than it is to kill. It is better to have more available than less. Of course, it is possible to craft scenarios where these are not true, but those wouldn't be normal: ask random people on the street if they want to kill you, and for the most part I would hope you get "no" as an answer; if you get a lot of "yes" then you are that outlier . To that end, the point Kaepora Gaebora and I differed on, was that I believe that I can say "A is better than B" based on these unspoken rules and have it understood as accepted truth for society at large, whereas he believes that one can never dismiss the outliers and that "better" must always be expressed as an opinion.

Re the 2-D 3-D: The libraries I'm talking about are those supplied by Nintendo et al; these ecosystems don't have any alternatives. You must use the official devkit. But sure, I'm positive that there are 3-D libs out there that are great at both.


"Better" is a matter of context and perspective. And if it's based on perspective, it's also based on goals. A pencil is the best tool for drawing a line you want to erase later, but what if you don't want to be able to erase it? Suddenly it's not. Normality is an odd argument to bring up, especially considering the forum we take part on. If we all wanted to be "normal" we'd be using the latest Android or iOS device and the OP would never hit our radar. Digression aside, general consensus != absolute truth. I still don't understand how "the majority do X" is grounds to justify a way of thinking. Just because one way to do things is more common doesn't automatically make it the best way to do it. While a lot of your scenarios are generally agreed on, consensus still isn't fact. There are endless examples of the majority not making the better choice in certain ways. For instance, Windows. Great for gamers, bad for people who want stable systems that don't need much maintenance. Bad for people who want to learn how to build their own OS or learn how their favorite software is built. Yet it's the most commonly used operating system. Does that make it the best? It depends on your perspective. Financially it is by far the best. Price? Almost the worst. Security? Trash. Compatibility? Nearly 100%.


Perspective and goals change everything when it comes to determining what's "best". That doesn't mean every little thing has to be qualified with "imo" tacked on the end of it. That's just absurd. If someone is commenting on a subjective subject, then it's obvious through context that what they say is their opinion.

 

[WizardStan]

If we all wanted to be "normal" we'd be using the latest Android or iOS device and the OP would never hit our radar.

What part of Android or Apple is required for survival? I don't understand how either of those things apply. Given that the average person doesn't even have a cell phone, seems to me that "normal" would be not having any of those things.

Digression aside, general consensus != absolute truth.

True enough, but it is close enough that I should be able to make a statement and have it understood as consistent truth.

I still don't understand how "the majority do X" is grounds to justify a way of thinking. Just because one way to do things is more common doesn't automatically make it the best way to do it.

I never said it is. I said that the majority follow a set of innate rules and work towards a common (usually unspoken) goal that allows one to say that one thing is better than another and have it be accepted.


Your examples about Android and iOS and Windows are irrelevant because they're specific implementations and you will not get any sort of consensus on what goal they actually want to achieve. If you asked average people in the streets whether they preferred resistive or capacitive touch screens (after explaining the pros and cons of each in a way they understand) you would get a sharp divide: even if one side was the clear winner, there would be enough on the other side to be more than a statistical anomaly. I wouldn't be able to say one was better than the other and have it accepted because a significant portion of the population would disagree.


If I'm around my friends who all have similar tastes in music, I should be able to say "artist X is better than artist Y" and they'll think about it and say "yes, that's true" because for our group we have a similar ruleset when it comes to music. I shouldn't have to specify that it is a statement of opinion because it is truth as far as our group is concerned.

 

[sporkbox]

You shouldn't have to clarify that it's your opinion because the subject matter itself demands that anything said on quality (outside of bitrates, instruments, etc) is subjective. It's a logical requirement. Whether others consider it "truth" is irrelevant. Their approval of what you say as a "truth" is just agreement. While that's socially valuable, it doesn't mean anything objectively. The Android and iOS mentions are relevant because a lot of us are into handhelds and interesting gadgetry. The average person who's into that stuff eats up iOS or Android and generally badmouths anything else. We're clearly not like that, even though we're part of the same demographic. That was my point. If we're arguing goal, I'd say the goals of Android and iOS users overlap quite a bit. The specifics differ, but the end goal is generally a portable computer + phone that does everything so they don't have to carry multiple devices.


The best goal is avoiding that menacing moon, though.

 

[WizardStan]

You shouldn't have to clarify that it's your opinion because the subject matter itself demands that anything said on quality (outside of bitrates, instruments, etc) is subjective.

Right, so we agree. Why are you debating with me then?

 

[sporkbox]

I thought you were supporting the idea that 3-D games are better than 2-d games in terms of quality (that is, quality that is beyond raw technicalities). We got hugely sidetracked from the original discussion so it wouldn't surprise me if we both got a bit distracted from the person we both meant to talk to. Oh well.


For those who enjoyed MM, what was your favorite dungeon? I loved Ikana Castle. The music, ReDead ballerinas, amusing boss battle, and the architecture made it fun. I'd like to see more architecture in Zelda look closer to what we see in Castlevania. You know, some Victorian and Gothic era building styles. It'd mesh really well if they did it right.

 

[WizardStan]

I thought you were supporting the idea that 3-D games are better than 2-d games in terms of quality (that is, quality that is beyond raw technicalities). We got hugely sidetracked from the original discussion so it wouldn't surprise me if we both got a bit distracted from the person we both meant to talk to. Oh well.

No, my original point about 3D being better than 2D even included the word "technically" in it. I then went on to clarify that that is because it is possible to do everything you can in a 2D environment in a 3D environment, but not the other way around: from a purely technical perspective, 3D is better than 2D, including a caveat that specific implementations of both 3D and 2D would be entirely up for debate.


It was when I tried using the "having two $10 bills is better than having one" analogy to explain the position that Kaepora Gaebora began the debate about what it means for something to be "better". I believed that there are some things that can be stated as fact to be "better", even though "better" is a strictly subjective word, and have it be understood; I shouldn't have to clarify that it is an opinion: "It is better to eat steak than to eat ground glass" shouldn't need an "in my opinion" attribute. Kaepora Gaebora made the argument that you can never discount the outliers, the people who, for whatever reason, prefer the taste of ground glass over steak (to use an extreme example) and therefore can never make a fact like statement of "A is better than B".


From the way you were trying to find counter examples to my analogy, I thought you were carrying on the same debate, that "better" is a subjective term and needs to be treated as such always.

 

[sporkbox]

I thought you were supporting the idea that 3-D games are better than 2-d games in terms of quality (that is, quality that is beyond raw technicalities). We got hugely sidetracked from the original discussion so it wouldn't surprise me if we both got a bit distracted from the person we both meant to talk to. Oh well.

No, my original point about 3D being better than 2D even included the word "technically" in it. I then went on to clarify that that is because it is possible to do everything you can in a 2D environment in a 3D environment, but not the other way around: from a purely technical perspective, 3D is better than 2D, including a caveat that specific implementations of both 3D and 2D would be entirely up for debate.


It was when I tried using the "having two $10 bills is better than having one" analogy to explain the position that Kaepora Gaebora began the debate about what it means for something to be "better". I believed that there are some things that can be stated as fact to be "better", even though "better" is a strictly subjective word, and have it be understood; I shouldn't have to clarify that it is an opinion: "It is better to eat steak than to eat ground glass" shouldn't need an "in my opinion" attribute. Kaepora Gaebora made the argument that you can never discount the outliers, the people who, for whatever reason, prefer the taste of ground glass over steak (to use an extreme example) and therefore can never make a fact like statement of "A is better than B".


From the way you were trying to find counter examples to my analogy, I thought you were carrying on the same debate, that "better" is a subjective term and needs to be treated as such always.

When the intended use of "better" isn't clarified, I do think it should be interpreted as an opinion. That way you don't assume someone's being haughty and claiming what they say is fact all the time. I've seen that a lot on many communities.

 

[Blue Protoman]

Wow, I can actually see the rails melting!

 

[sporkbox]

Wow, I can actually see the rails melting!

Right? My attempts at rerailing it have failed

 

[WizardStan]

Wow, I can actually see the rails melting!

Right? My attempts at rerailing it have failed

That's because you tried to do so by forcibly derailing a concurrent thread. Trains (and threads) need to be moved between tracks by a common join point. That's how derailing happens in the first place: tangent to an existing post. Except in very weird situations, you normally can't just say "we're talking about this now" and completely ignore the track it was previously on.


Besides, there's also no reason two trains can't run on two parallel tracks until one reaches its destination.

When the intended use of "better" isn't clarified, I do think it should be interpreted as an opinion. That way you don't assume someone's being haughty and claiming what they say is fact all the time. I've seen that a lot on many communities.

So are you saying that that is what I did? I didn't mean to, hence the analogy which I thought everyone would understand as "true".

 

[Nintendo]

Could we please get back on the topic of The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask. Cheers.

 

[WizardStan]

Absolutely, just not by sporkbox or I. It's the nature of multithreading that you can't arbitrarily decide to drop one and move back anymore than you can just pick up a train and drop it on another track: it needs to reach a common junction point or it's destination first.


In fact, there's no reason that no one else couldn't have kept talking about Majora's Mask this whole time, unless there's nothing more to talk about.

 

[ZXDunny]

Why on earth would we want to talk about Marjora's Mask when there's so many other games that are so much better? Now, Jet Set Willy on the Spectrum, for example...


D.