bluebonics

@ikki5 Japan is a small country and we're comparing it to "The West." There are more studios in America alone, never mind the massive amount in Europe. Seems like "top 10" is a cherry picked number, because if you go down the list of top selling video games, see things like Pokemon, AC:NH, Elden Ring, etc. Japan is very well represented, and I don't think Elden Ring needs to be more like GTA.

@IndoorHero Disagree completely. Once you start meaningfully changing the internals, you create two separate ecosystems of gamers, and that never works out well.

This isn't meant to be some new Switch that everyone upgrades from. This is for people looking to buy a Switch, either first timers or people whose Switch died for whatever reason, and they get refreshed hardware, but fundamentally the same Switch gaming experience as everyone else.

I am pumped for ethernet built into the dock, as I'm looking for another dock for my game room, since the main dock stays in the family room all the time.

@MysticX And the problem is, you can find something that looks like a pattern in almost anything, particularly when numbers get involved.

I am so incredibly pumped the Crossbell games are coming. I've played the Liberl games and I'm getting through ToCS IV right now. ToCS III and IV are blowing my mind, and even though I understand / figured out what I assume is most of what comes from the Crossbell games, I feel like I'm missing a big part of III and IV given just how much is referenced from them.

It's pretty tragic they didn't release localizations here prior to the games wrapping up the Erebonia arc, since they rely so heavily on them.

But I'll gladly take anything I can regarding the Trails series. It's so remarkably good.

@Strumpan Why? So that low lives who do things like this get to hide behind the company? No. You go after the parties directly responsible so they can learn some personal accountability.

@PBandSmelly Hacking one company for 700GB of data is nowhere near as bad as the continued degradation of the gaming industry that EA leads the way on.

@zool Switch is still a great home console. Put the pipe down.

Woo, I can't wait for this. I wanted a platformer and was hesitant about it given it is... somewhat visually strange, but it was a great experience and the weird look grows on you. Absolutely getting this day 1, though probably on Steam so hopefully they do concurrent releases.

@thejuice027 No, they are not the same color. You can look at them and see they're different colors, right? They share the same hue. They are different colors.

@thejuice027 No, 490nm is not light blue. That's cyan. Dark blue is not 440nm, that's some shade of bluish purple.

Go find a hex color picker. Enter in #0000FF and then #8080FF and then #000080 ... every single one of those is the same wavelength of blue, but each single color is different. In your world, they're either the same color (which would be crazy, and I'll call you insane), or two of them are "fake." Most colors are like this. Most colors cannot be defined by a single wavelength of light, otherwise you're insane, by my previous parenthetical.

I can't believe you still can't grasp this. I'm sorry but you're just wrong, and you clearly do not understand the concepts you're talking about. I can't help your ignorance anymore.

You can lead a horse to water, but if it asks "where's the water?" then there's only so much you can do.

@thejuice027 Except nothing about "describing them with a wavelength" is what defines colors. And no, we can't describe all colors with just wavelengths... because something like "light blue" doesn't have a single wavelength associated with it. "Light blue" is a combination of blue light and a mixture of white light. This means the color of the sky, when you look at it, isn't a real color, because it's not pure blue and isn't associated with a single wavelength, the white light that's mixed in makes it look different from a pure blue wavelength, and you can't find a single wavelength that is the color of the sky.

Most colors cannot be described with a single wavelength of light because they include a mixture of white light, and further, how "dark" a color is, like midnight blue, is dependent on the density of photons per area that hits your eye. If you have more or less "blue" photons, the color you perceive changes, so even for a single wavelength, there are variations of the color.

Sorry, but the idea that only magenta isn't real but the others are is just false. Most color you perceive cannot be associated with a single wavelength. Color perception is vastly more complicated than "a color is defined by a wavelength of light." Ever see a sunset? Almost none of those colors are "real" by your definition, because they will include white light mixed in, and will vary with the amount of photons in any given region.

@thejuice027 Yes, that is true and I've said that all along. That doesn't mean magenta isn't a real color. The point of my analogy with yellow light being produced with a mixture of red and green light is that all colors are in your head and only a result of your brain interpreting signals from cells in the eye. Either all colors are real or all colors aren't real.

All colors are a result of your brain interpreting the stimulation of your eye's cone cells. Magenta is no different — it's just the color your brain produces when receiving signals from cones that get stimulated by colors on the opposite end of the spectrum. Similarly, white is the color your brain produces when receiving signals from all your cone types, and black is the color your brain produces when not receiving signals on any cone type (well, there's a minimum threshold for photons hitting cells in a region of your eye to produce black, some species such as frogs can perceive individual photons, we cannot).

@thejuice027 Yes, light leaves the screen in the form of red, green and blue wavelengths. It never leaves the screen in the form of 580nm wavelengths. No wavelength associated with yellow or cyan or orange or any other color ever leaves your monitor. Again, you can see this by looking at the actual subpixels. If you get a magnifying glass, you will see that only red, green and blue light ever leaves your monitor.

The reason you see those other colors is due to how color perception works, which I've tried explaining. I'm done with explaining now, and if you still don't get it, I can only suggest researching color perception and eye physiology.

@thejuice027 "the yellow you see on your monitor is producing a 580nm leaving the screen and hitting your eye"

No it isn't. Dude, you can look closely at your monitor and even see the red, green and blue colors. Put yellow on your monitor and get a magnifying glass, it's made from red and green light. All monitors only produce red, green and blue light. This is basic stuff.

If you don't even understand this, it's no wonder you're so confused as to why magenta is real. I've even tried to explain eye physiology to you so that you can grasp how we perceive colors, but clearly you're struggling with this.

Edit: not sure what's allowed for links here but start learning about monitors here:

https://www.chem.purdue.edu/gchelp/cchem/RGBColors/body_rgbcolors.html

It's why colors are listed with RGB values, when you see R:255, G:255, B:0 and it produces a yellow color, that's because the red subpixel is at max intensity, the green subpixel is at max intensity, and the blue subpixel is turned off. Each subpixel has 256 levels of intensity, and that's how monitors produce color.

It's like this because your eye has 3 types of cone cells, one that peaks near red wavelengths, one that peaks near green wavelengths and one that peaks near blue wavelengths, and all colors you perceive are due to differing intensities of how those three cones get stimulated by light. So when your monitor produces yellow, it's sending out red and green light, it's stimulating your red and green cones, and your brain is interpreting that as yellow.

When 580nm light enters your eye, it stimulates your red and green cones, and your brain is interpreting that as yellow. That's how color vision works.

@thejuice027 It's not wrong to say that... that's what's happening. You clearly have no idea what I'm saying because "you'd see the same color everywhere" has no bearing on what I said at all. You can take red and green wavelengths and with the right ratios, produce the exact same color as 580nm wavelength light, because that's how the eye works. That's how your monitor works. All those colors you see on your monitor are produced by just red, green and blue lights. If you see yellow from your monitor, there is no 580nm wavelength involved, yet you still see yellow. So "yellow" isn't a feature of 580nm light, but in which cones are being stimulated in which proportions. There is no yellow subpixel on your monitor, yet you can produce yellow on it.

Again, consider what color you'd see without an m cone — yellow wouldn't exist despite 580nm light still existing... and then consider we can see a yellow color without a 580nm wavelength involved... you see it any time your computer monitor makes yellow. I mean, do you even understand what I'm talking about at all here?

The point is that color is not intrinsic to light. It depends on the photoreceptors inside your eye and the brain's interpretation of it. I mean, do you think a chimpanzee sees "580nm" light as yellow? They don't have red cones in their eyes, so they can't, 580nm light produces some other color for them, because "yellow" is not intrinsic to 580nm light.

Nothing I've said is wrong in the slightest, you just don't understand what's being said.

@thejuice027 I'm not "partially" right at all. Nothing you've said is different from what I said. The point is, that 580nm is stimulating your receptors the same as just using whatever proportions of red and green light, and there is nothing special about 580nm light that makes the color produced more real than any other. That yellow perception has nothing to do with 580nm light specifically and has everything to do with your l and m cones being stimulated, either by that one wavelength or by multiple different wavelengths... so the color "yellow" isn't a feature of 580nm light specifically, but is a feature of which cones in your eyes get stimulated and in what proportions.

This logically contradicts the claim that "magenta isn't a real color," because color isn't defined by a wavelength of light, but rather a perception in the brain related to the proportion of stimulation in different cone types in the eye.

Another way to consider it is "what if we didn't have m cones" ... then 580nm light wouldn't look yellow, it would look green. Color isn't a feature of light. It's a feature of how we interpret light.

Magenta is a real color. Any color you perceive — magenta, white, black — is real, because color is an effect of the brain and your eyes.

Edit: and it's worth pointing out that white and black don't have to deal with materials and their absorption. You can generate white through light, and black through an absence of light. White is when all your cones get stimulated and black is when none do.

@everynowandben Nah, I was trying to clarify that a single wavelength of light doesn't matter or define what a color is or whether it's real or exists or whatever. I just tend to be overly wordy

@everynowandben Technically neither white nor black do, but wavelengths of light are not the same as color, and it follows from the ability to blend colors using different wavelengths and produce a color that isn't associated with those wavelengths.

Consider R=255,B=255,G=0 and R=255,B=0,G=255. The first is magenta and the second is yellow, but in neither case is there a wavelength associated with the color you're seeing hitting your eye. Both colors are being produced by the wavelengths associated with reds, greens and blues.

Color isn't the physical light itself or even a property of the light itself, and only exists as the brain's interpretation of it. The color is the brain's interpretation of light triggering a response from 3 different cones in your eye. And those three different cones combine to create the different colors. It's just that varying wavelengths can stimulate more than one cone and thus produce the effect of stimulating both cones with separate colors. So magenta is just the color produced when our s and l cones get stimulated, just like yellow is the color produced when our l and m cones get stimulated. The only difference is that there's a wavelength of light that can stimulate both l and m cones at the same time, but there isn't a wavelength that stimulates both s and l cones at the same time, but we can find out that color by stimulating them with separate wavelengths.

@thejuice027 if magenta isn't a real color, then no colors are real!

@Quix Well, color dominance isn't really related to blending/mixing colors, so it's not particularly relevant here.

Color dominance is related to design — which colors will stand out more compared to surrounding colors. But primary colors tend to be the most dominant, which would be cyan, magenta and yellow in a subtractive process. But then the tricks of perception come into play and things like shading, highlights, composition will also affect which color the eyes are drawn towards.

And then let's not even get into the issue with labeling colors, because a lot of how we deal with the design theories like what you're talking about are very limited by language and the frame of reference we have for labeling colors.

@everynowandben

He may have been referring to an RBY model, so yes, I may have missed that. For the actual point of my comment though, it doesn't actually matter which model you use. (And technically, RBY aren't sufficient subtractive primaries, and rather CMY colors for are better for subtractive blending, which are just the midpoints of the additive model, but I guess RBY is still regularly taught to children.)

The actual point is that his use of the associative property and adding two colors yielding the same color, doesn't hold for color blending, so his attempt to say (red + blue) + blue = red + (blue + blue) = red + blue is false reasoning.

@JimmySpades I made an account just for you, so congrats.

First, blue + red isn't purple. It's magenta. You can figure this out by finding a color picker online and doing full blue, full red and no green. The result is magenta. Purple is when you add more blue to magenta, which brings us to:

You're thinking about the math wrong... blue + blue + red isn't the same as blue + red, and purple shows this off. The issue is in ratios, rather than whatever you're doing. 2 parts blue to 1 part red is not the same as 1 part blue to 1 part red.

You seem to have forgotten that there is a whole gradient of colors between blue and (blue + red), of which different proportions of blue will change it.