Posts by Silent Lion

    To get the most out of the Zelda games, do you have to play some before others?
    Example - I love MM, I think it's a better game than OoT. But I wouldn't have understood or enjoyed it nearly as much without playing OoT first. Sure, it's not 100% required, but the intro and outro would make no sense, the ocarina and Goddess of Time would make no sense, you wouldn't really know what a skull kid was meant to be...

    And aLttP. It's an awesome game, but if you haven't played LoZ or OoT (one of the basic "rescue the princess, Ganondorf's the bad guy" games) wouldn't it be a bit like,
    "Agahnim is really just the puppet of.. GANON!!!! D:: "
    "Orly? Wtf is a Ganon? Why do I care?"

    So there's the question - should you play a 'plain game' before you play one of the others?

    Classic battle of the N64 titles, suprised this hasn't cropped up yet. I'm not the only agèd one here.

    These were my first two Zelda games, so there's a lot of childhood nostalgia clouding about. I couldn't decide on this for years, but now I prefer MM. Here's a breakdown, read it or skip it, so long as you read it.

    Characters
    I know that MM has characters, but I didn't see anything in OoT...
    As is probably obvious, people in OoT are just placeholders or cheesy comic pantomine characters. The only exceptions that display any modicum of depth: Mido, Saria and Ganondorf. But really only Ganondorf. I'll give OoT credit for that - to my knowledge, it's the first game where big G stops being the - "bwahaha! Flee my purple pixels of doom!" - animation of the 2D games and becomes the - "My country lay within a vast desert. When the sun rose into the sky, a burning wind punished my lands, searing the world. And when the moon climbed into the dark of night, a frigid gale pierced our homes. No matter when it came, the wind carried the same thing... Death. But the winds that blew across the green fields of Hyrule brought something other than suffering and ruin. I coveted that wind, I suppose." - Ganondorf of actually having something to think about. Still, one proper character isn't a lot to go on.
    But in MM, even minor characters often have recognisable personalities or conflicting internal interests. Anju and Kafei, Darmani, Skull Kid, Tatl, various others... all of them have more complexity than 99% of anything in OoT.
    MM wins this one like King Leonidas at senior sports day.

    Music
    This one's tough. For starter's OoT's overworld theme is vastly better than MM. Yes, MM had a decent orchestration of the classic theme, but OoT's overworld theme was new and immersive. It felt like wilderness music, and when it drew to an end it really felt like the end of a summer's evening. But, Clock Town theme was pretty great, and the last few hours in clock town is tres atmospheric. The music for the four regions didn't have anything I could call a tune, but they did give a sinister, wild ambience that was pretty cool. The MM dungeons music, did nothing for me. At all. Remixing the Song Of Time for different effects, was either really inventive or really lazy. I can't quite decide. But other than the Song Of Healing and Oath To Order, I can't remember any of the playable songs on MM. And I found the Deku Palace theme just too catchy! Like, bad catchy when you stop enjoying it and want it to go away.
    By contrast, I remember all of the OoT songs. Even a lot of the ambient music still runs through my head - Market Town, Kakariko Village, Spirit Temple (especially Spirit Temple, love that). The musics of the temples are all very atmospheric and appropriate. All in all, this one goes to OoT.

    World
    What I didn't like about MM was the regimentally symmetrical overworld. That completely broke the immersion, and for me immersion is a big thing. Like any believable world would have a capital town in a perfectly circular field surrounded by four distinct lands at perfect cardinal points. Bah! Hyrule Field was much more natural, with exits to other areas spread randomly and believably. Being able to trace the water from Zora's Fountain right through to Lake Hylia was a good move. Having said that, nothing in OoT can compete with Clock Town, and once you got to one of the four lands, each one felt sprawling and natural in its own right. Hated Great Bay, but loved the other three, and nothing in OoT could match the creepiness of Ikanna, either.
    OoT's world did, however, have a much better sense of history and shared culture. Links between the Gorons, Zora, Impa and the Royal Family (Shadow Temple was intrguiging, speaking of history). The temples of both games were evocative enough. People always forget about the dungeon design, like they're not a real part of the overworld. Anyway, I think MM just tips this one.

    Playability
    MM. No contest. The masks, the bomber's notebook and extensive side-quests, the greater variety of enemies, watching things progress over the three days, the bank and post... that's enough right there, isn't it? Let's be honest, we all got used to the three day thing pretty quickly. Did it REALLY bug anyone past the first section?
    The temples might give OoT a fighting chance, because the MM temples were a little lame, but I don't think it's enough to compensate for everything MM gains.

    Plot
    MM had one. OoT rehashed one.

    So there we are. That's why MM beats OoT. And let's face it, MM is so much more unique. OoT was a 3D rendering of classic fantasy action-adventuring, MM made an effort to be creatively distinct.

    Yeah.

    This was a great thing to find after a hiatus from the forum :)

    The idea of holes and antiparticles strikes me as similar to temperature. Only allegorically, but I watched a documentary about the early understanding of cold, and how it was considered to be a separate, physical thing. It wasn't until a hundred years or so ago that we finally understood it to be the absence of something. I can't help but draw a parallel with the way our understanding of quantum particles might evolve.

    But now that I have free tuition from a physics graduate ;) , behold my QUESTIONS!

    It has been pointed out in Stewart's book that the orbit of the earth is not the effect of pulling from the sun, like the lead-ball-on-the-end-of-a-string-being-spun-round imagined in Newtonian physics. Rather, the planet is being deflected off the curvature in space caused by the sun, like the camber of a road. So, naturally, I got thinking about these things: https://i.ytimg.com/vi/X6e1y0WzzeE/maxresdefault.jpg

    Why is it that the coin seems to exit the hole at the bottom with greater velocity than it began with? I can only assume it's an optical illusion, because no matter what exotic physics happens, the coin cannot gain kinetic energy unless that energy is provided to it from outside. As the coin makes a lot of noise, if anything it should be losing energy - the effect of gravity over the short vertical distance from the coin slot to the spiral can't add very much.

    The other question is, when we measure electromagnetic frequency, what is it the frequency OF? A sound wave, for example, is a measure of air pressure relative to a background equilibrium, represented as the x-axis at zero. So, is electromagnetic frequency an oscillation in the 'energy pressure/concentration' relative to some rest state?

    Try this for me, sitting at your computer. I want you to imagine the following story. It begins in a misty, featureless plain. It'll only work if you can put yourself there, take a moment if you have to.

    You're standing in a misty, featureless plain. You feel like you're dreaming, with no sense of time or place. You just are - you, the mist, and nothing. Some distance ahead, a shape can be seen. It's a person, emerging out of the fog. Step by step, they approach. They're standing right in front of you. You look them up and down - they look you in the eye, and say "So... "

    Cool, thanks.
    No, that's not it.

    I want to know what the person looked like! What did your mind conjure? Tall? Short? Fat? Thin? Clothes? Race? Gender? And what did their voice sound like?

    No points being made here, just pure curiosity.

    I've gone off fiction lately, but I'll deff read the next Millenium's Rule when it comes out, and I'll try to find time for Wilbur Smith. I started reading Warlock ages ago at someone's house, and I'd love to pick it up again.

    I'm waiting on Ian Stewart's Incredible Numbers, then Equations That Changed The World by the same. Also trying to finish Paradise Lost, because it's hard work once you get into it it's a heck of a poem. Morte D'Arthur might be kinda cool too. Oh! And Harwiring Happiness by Rick Hanson.

    I was reading the latest book of Richard Dawkins as a respite from my life's work in phrenology. Naturally, my mind soon returned to my worthy occupation and I just happened to notice the slight elongated skull James Chadwick has... a clear craniological sign of heightened intellect, and an ironic contrast to the minute scale of his studies. It was clear that reading Dawkins was providing little distraction, but it did set my mind upon the phrenological framework of wider nature in an evolutionary context... it's funny how people miss the point of evolution and its relationship with the circle of life, just as some people think that the whole introduction to The Lion King song was just talking about a lion. I am always devastated when I meet such oversight. Anyway, this particular passage was discussing the overwhelming geological evidence for evolution and the contribution of volcanologist Bill McGuire to the geological field. A cross-disciplinary approach is essential to good scientific progress, much like a game of ping-pong.

    If Link reads this, don't worry, it's just bull :P

    I'll check out the video when I get some proper bandwidth, my dongle is a bit cowardly.

    When my books arrive at the library, I'm going to start teaching myself some maths. All this stuff fascinates me, but it becomes increasingly clear that trying to understand it without knowing the maths is a limited prospect.

    From a conceptual point of view, I can picture how a particle orbiting an atom at very high frequency (as the speed of light compared to the tiny distance around an atom would be), it would, for the sake of observation, be as though it were oribiting an infinite times a second, and all the effects of wave behaviour would come into being (probability density, etc). And it would explain some of the 'collapsing to a particle' behaviours.

    Equally, picturing it as a field and the particle as being merely the most 'concentrated' point on that field at any one time yields the simular conceptual results.

    But, as I say, the next thing for me would be some proper maths. I'm getting some books in by Ian Stewart, I've heard good things about him.

    Quote

    You cannot calculate the result without letting it actually happen.

    I've heard this mentioned elsewhere. At fist, it seems perfectly intuitive that the most efficient way of calculating the result of a system is the system itself. But, on further reflection, that's a quantum property. The larger the system, or the longer it takes to produce the output, the easier it is to nail down results well in advance of the system. We predict the weather, for example. Of course, as you point out, we don't predict with certainty - we only predict a probability spread.

    But the larger the system and the longer the system takes to run, the narrower the probability spread seems to be. We can predict the orbit of the Earth and the resultant solar calendar with much more accuracy. Inversely, with something as small and quick as the quantum world, we could never hope to predict it in advance without being able to control something even smaller and faster with which to run the calculation. But then that's just statistics, isn't it - the more times you roll a dice, the closer each number gets to a 1/6 frequency. So the larger the system, the more quantum 'dice-rolls' are combined to make a clean, solid number. A system as large as the Earth's orbit has a very high sample size of quantum dice-rolls. Heck, maybe the wole physical world is just that - the illusion of certainty from the combination of countless probabilities.

    The uncertainty principle is meant to mean that there is true randomness in the universe. But I don't see how that can be verified, without rewinding the universe and seeing if the results repeat. I have yet to find a compelling argument (or be qualified enough to understand a compelling argument) that the universe is not deterministic. The uncertainty principle is supported by Godel's incompleteness theorems, which say that the universe is an incomplete, non-trivial computational system and therefore not all values and formulae can be deduced from any particular point within the system. But, more colloquially, all that means is that not everything can be deduced, referring to human knowledge. That's not quite the same as saying it isn't predetermined. It could well be, only that we are incapable of deducing it. So, the uncertainty principle holds, for now, as a practical experimental concept, but is it really some fundamental truth about the universe?