By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo - Zelda OOT : NEW N64 vs 3DS screens comparison

oniyide on 14 April 2011

anybody who cant see the difference needs to have their eyes checked or put down the damn Grey Goose



Around the Network
Roma on 14 April 2011
Acevil said:
Khuutra said:
Nintendogamer said:

There's hardly any difference, with Zelda in the temple of time holding the ocarina, they both look the same.

What.

Nope, no difference khuutra, they look the same. Am I seeing twins? 

lol he is talking about zelda not link. he is right about that they look the same



    R.I.P Mr Iwata :'(

Chrizum on 14 April 2011
Khuutra said:
Chrizum said:
Khuutra said:
Chrizum said:

So you're saying there's no such thing as subjectivity when it comes down to visual stimuli? Each person's visual cortex is exactly identical?

I am saying that anyone who says that there is little or no change when it comes to character models, texture resolution, and general geometrical complexity are quantitatively and objectively wrong.

In this case, there's nothing subjective about it. Subjectivity only applies to the importance you place on those differences or the effect they have on you; that they are there is not a matter that is up for debate.

I think you confuse two things here. The images have a certain amount of differences. These differences are factual and not up for debate. However, not every person is able to spot those differences as easily. People who are more perceptive about things like polygon count and texture resolution should be able to spot these differences more easily than those looking more casually at screenshots.

If I would show these comparisons to my mother, she wouldn't see the difference, save for a few things like brighter colors and longer ears.

The perception of these is not the point, it's the factual assertion that the images look  "essentially the same", w hich is objectively untrue.

Of course it is, but come on, 99% of people's statements (on forums and otherwise) are subjective in the first place. When I say "I don't need a car, it's useless", my car owning friends can go and bitch about my statement trying to prove a car is useful to have, but they -like you- would totally go beyond the fact that the statement I made is purely subjective.

In other words, don't be so anal about these things, it's just one person's evaluation of a screenshot comparison of a game you happen to love.



Mr.Ashtear on 14 April 2011

Tbh, given the graphic capability of the 3DS, it could look waaaaaaaaaaay better. Lazy Nintendo...



pwin´ every other villain since 1994

Khuutra on 14 April 2011
Chrizum said:
Khuutra said:

The perception of these is not the point, it's the factual assertion that the images look  "essentially the same", w hich is objectively untrue.

Of course it is, but come on, 99% of people's statements (on forums and otherwise) are subjective in the first place. When I say "I don't need a car, it's useless", my car owning friends can go and bitch about my statement trying to prove a car is useful to have, but they -like you- would totally go beyond the fact that the statement I made is purely subjective.

In other words, don't be so anal about these things, it's just one person's evaluation of a screenshot comparison of a game you happen to love.

Even if I'm going to ignore the irony of someone telling me not to be anal at the end of a half dozen post chain wherein we argue about what is or isn't subjective in graphics discussions, which is really difficult to not further elucidate on

The statement is not subjective. SOrry; it's not. Subjective intent (which is not clear, and is refuted by him arguing the point that they look the same thereafter) does not equate to objective statements. The statement was objective, and it was objectively wrong, and it continues to be objectively wrong. Your statement too would be objectively wrong, phrased the way it is, but the difference with you would most likely be that you would clarify - hopefully - that you meant it in the context of your own lifestyle instead of a more general and objective standard.



Around the Network
Chrizum on 14 April 2011
Khuutra said:
Chrizum said:
Khuutra said:

The perception of these is not the point, it's the factual assertion that the images look  "essentially the same", w hich is objectively untrue.

Of course it is, but come on, 99% of people's statements (on forums and otherwise) are subjective in the first place. When I say "I don't need a car, it's useless", my car owning friends can go and bitch about my statement trying to prove a car is useful to have, but they -like you- would totally go beyond the fact that the statement I made is purely subjective.

In other words, don't be so anal about these things, it's just one person's evaluation of a screenshot comparison of a game you happen to love.

Even if I'm going to ignore the irony of someone telling me not to be anal at the end of a half dozen post chain wherein we argue about what is or isn't subjective in graphics discussions, which is really difficult to not further elucidate on

The statement is not subjective. SOrry; it's not. Subjective intent (which is not clear, and is refuted by him arguing the point that they look the same thereafter) does not equate to objective statements. The statement was objective, and it was objectively wrong, and it continues to be objectively wrong. Your statement too would be objectively wrong, phrased the way it is, but the difference with you would most likely be that you would clarify - hopefully - that you meant it in the context of your own lifestyle instead of a more general and objective standard.

My point is that while a statement may appear to be objective (and may be stated as a factual statement ie X = Y), I would assume you're very well aware that these statements often don't have any objective intent; they are subjective evaluations almost by definition considering evaluating stimuli is always subjective.

As a rule of thumb, when people on the internet say things about games, it's their opinion and thus subjective. Putting an "IMO" behind every statement should be unnecessary, hell it would be annoying IMO.

And thanks for calling me anal for having this discussion with you. I should have figured you hate to debate online.



Khuutra on 14 April 2011
Chrizum said:
Khuutra said:

Even if I'm going to ignore the irony of someone telling me not to be anal at the end of a half dozen post chain wherein we argue about what is or isn't subjective in graphics discussions, which is really difficult to not further elucidate on

The statement is not subjective. SOrry; it's not. Subjective intent (which is not clear, and is refuted by him arguing the point that they look the same thereafter) does not equate to objective statements. The statement was objective, and it was objectively wrong, and it continues to be objectively wrong. Your statement too would be objectively wrong, phrased the way it is, but the difference with you would most likely be that you would clarify - hopefully - that you meant it in the context of your own lifestyle instead of a more general and objective standard.

My point is that while a statement may appear to be objective (and may be stated as a factual statement ie X = Y), I would assume you're very well aware that these statements often don't have any objective intent; they are subjective evaluations almost by definition considering evaluating stimuli is always subjective.

As a rule of thumb, when people on the internet say things about games, it's their opinion and thus subjective. Putting an "IMO" behind every statement should be unnecessary, hell it would be annoying IMO.

And thanks for calling me anal for having this discussion with you. I should have figured you hate to debate online.

You're ignoring the fact that I actually folllowed up on the original statement to determine if it was objective or subjective; it was the former, not the latter.

I agree with that rule of thumb, but there are exceptions to those times and this is one of them.

I can't tell if you're trying to be ironic or not with thhat last paragraph



Chrizum on 14 April 2011
Khuutra said:
Chrizum said:
Khuutra said:

Even if I'm going to ignore the irony of someone telling me not to be anal at the end of a half dozen post chain wherein we argue about what is or isn't subjective in graphics discussions, which is really difficult to not further elucidate on

The statement is not subjective. SOrry; it's not. Subjective intent (which is not clear, and is refuted by him arguing the point that they look the same thereafter) does not equate to objective statements. The statement was objective, and it was objectively wrong, and it continues to be objectively wrong. Your statement too would be objectively wrong, phrased the way it is, but the difference with you would most likely be that you would clarify - hopefully - that you meant it in the context of your own lifestyle instead of a more general and objective standard.

My point is that while a statement may appear to be objective (and may be stated as a factual statement ie X = Y), I would assume you're very well aware that these statements often don't have any objective intent; they are subjective evaluations almost by definition considering evaluating stimuli is always subjective.

As a rule of thumb, when people on the internet say things about games, it's their opinion and thus subjective. Putting an "IMO" behind every statement should be unnecessary, hell it would be annoying IMO.

And thanks for calling me anal for having this discussion with you. I should have figured you hate to debate online.

You're ignoring the fact that I actually folllowed up on the original statement to determine if it was objective or subjective; it was the former, not the latter.

I agree with that rule of thumb, but there are exceptions to those times and this is one of them.

I can't tell if you're trying to be ironic or not with thhat last paragraph

The way I read his comment, it was his opinion, to which you responded it's not up for debate, and here we are.

And yes I was ironic. You should know I often enjoy your posts and ability to debate, that's why I'm bit annoyed when you take it out on people who I feel are not deserving it. It also doesn't help I get easily annoyed when people on a forum try to force their opinion on others for a silly thing like screenshots.

Good night.



Lyrikalstylez on 14 April 2011

I expected better graphics, but this is satisfying anyways

I wonder if Nintendo will charge us full price for this ?



Khuutra on 14 April 2011
Chrizum said:
Khuutra said:

You're ignoring the fact that I actually folllowed up on the original statement to determine if it was objective or subjective; it was the former, not the latter.

I agree with that rule of thumb, but there are exceptions to those times and this is one of them.

I can't tell if you're trying to be ironic or not with thhat last paragraph

The way I read his comment, it was his opinion, to which you responded it's not up for debate, and here we are.

And yes I was ironic. You should know I often enjoy your posts and ability to debate, that's why I'm bit annoyed when you take it out on people who I feel are not deserving it. It also doesn't help I get easily annoyed when people on a forum try to force their opinion on others for a silly thing like screenshots.

Good night.

I'm sorry if I acted out of bounds.