Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1403)
Joined: 5/31/2004
Posts: 1821
DarkKobold wrote:
Also, I fail to see the benefits of removing publications. Are they causing the site massive distress, simply for existing?
I think the point is being consistent. Either it's a site where these movies are accepted, and new ones like these would also be, or it's a site where they aren't accepted, and why would old ones be there, just because they were published at a time where every TAS got a reaction like: "oh, wow... a TAS!"
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1403)
Joined: 5/31/2004
Posts: 1821
gia wrote:
Warp wrote:
Baxter wrote:
Ferret Warlord wrote:
Practically the only run that people seriously suggested be unpublished was Guanobowl's Ocarina run for being slower than the current <i>unassisted</i> record.
What? Were these people serious? That like unpublishing the SMB TAS because a new timesaver has been discovered... Unpublishing a run because it can be improved is way more rediculous than unpublishing something because it's not entertaining.
It was not being suggested for unpublication because it was not optimal. That had nothing to do with it. It was suggested for unpublication because there was a regular speedrun which was faster.
A TAS which aims for maximum speed and does not beat a regular speedrun is not only against the rules, it's also shameful. It's a laughing stock.
It's not a laughing stock, it was just beaten by a speedrun, if the speedrunner had tried a tas instead they would have got an even faster time. Usually it's because of a new trick or soemthing like that.
I bolded what is exactly my point. I don't believe a TAS can be beaten without some new trick or strategy. It is possible that a speedrun includes this before a new TAS does, but this doesn't change anything. The TAS could even be frame perfect had it not been for that one trick. It only means a new TAS can be made that obsoletes the current one. A very unentertaining movie might just be a bad game choice, without the possibility of such an improvement.
Chef Stef wrote:
I think unpublishing is a tricky thing to do because it removes the "security" people get for their work once their movie is published.
I know what you mean but I assume unpublishing would be a single event, just like the revival of rejected runs.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1403)
Joined: 5/31/2004
Posts: 1821
Ferret Warlord wrote:
Practically the only run that people seriously suggested be unpublished was Guanobowl's Ocarina run for being slower than the current <i>unassisted</i> record.
What? Were these people serious? That like unpublishing the SMB TAS because a new timesaver has been discovered... Unpublishing a run because it can be improved is way more rediculous than unpublishing something because it's not entertaining.
Whether runs should be unpublished because of a lack of entertainment value depends I think, on the direction the site is going as mentioned before. If the same run would clearly be rejected now, then is wouldn't make sense to have it in a site that attempts to provide high quality TASes (with it's main aim entertainment)... if it's to make a full library of games, then it wouldn't make sense to unpublish them.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1403)
Joined: 5/31/2004
Posts: 1821
adelikat wrote:
3) Must be done in a topic similar to the unrejections. Where it has to be nominated, debated, and then after a period of time, decided upon by a judge.
Yeah, I was gonna suggest this. It seems only fair.
adelikat wrote:
I am in support of the site being about the "best of the best" publications. However, I have also always enjoyed the idea of a "hall of records". I also like Alden's idea of multiple categories of publications. So I am not sure which direction is best atm :s
Yeah, this is a hard one. I like the idea that the site is about high quality TASes, but I could see why some people would just want to see a complete library of all games. Two categories would however still pose problems, as some rules could still be considered too arbitrary. Would it for instance mean there will be 16 individual character runs for each street fighter game?
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1403)
Joined: 5/31/2004
Posts: 1821
mmbossman wrote:
Perhaps a site rule of only allowing 2-3 hacks per (original) game to be published? New hack submissions would have to make a case for why their hack is better than the already published movies.
I don't see why there must be such a limit. Obviously a movie needs to add something significantly new... but as long as it's an original and entertaining movie, I don't see a problem.
Edit: This also applies to the whole "this hack is accepted" and "this one isn't"-policy. It's just like all other games actually... if there is a greatly entertaining submission of a hack that has never been discussed before, it will be accepted... if the movie of the hack isn't very entertaining it gets rejected. It's just the same as every other game... maybe a hack has a bigger chance of getting labeled "bad game choice", but that's about it.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1403)
Joined: 5/31/2004
Posts: 1821
Voting no... using only a single character was boring to me. I also don't see anything particular that particularly couldn't be done without tools (although I must admit that I don't know the game very well).
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1403)
Joined: 5/31/2004
Posts: 1821
fruitbane wrote:
This desire is hard to express, but I guess I've seen so many games where jumping is faster than walking, so what happens? The play features the main character hopping all the way to the finish, avoiding most enemies instead of facing them. I'd like to see some TAS videos that are less obnoxious that way. Deliberately walking instead of jumping constantly even though jumping may be a little faster. Being more aggressive in killing enemies instead of simply skipping them all would also have some benefits. They could still be played with impeccable skill, and it doesn't mean you have to never jump and never skip enemies, but as much as I enjoy TASes they do often produce some vary narrow results. I like it when movies are submitted which attach some goals other than speed or set arbitrary restrictions.
Again, I see nothing really new. I think there is a perfect recent example of this. Read this post and the following discussion. To me it seems that everyone actually agrees with you... although you might find things to be obnoxious sooner than others...
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1403)
Joined: 5/31/2004
Posts: 1821
Warp wrote:
Baxter wrote:
We already have a lot of runs where speed isn't the main goal... all 100% runs for instance, but there are also no damage runs, 100% kill runs and so on.
I think it's incorrect to say that "speed isn't the main goal" with those runs. The speed is still the main goal, but some restrictions are being applied for entertainment purposes. As an example, the Mario64 run which collects all the stars has still speed as its goal: It tries to collect them as fast as is possible.
This is just playing with words... you know we both mean the same. There is nothing wrong saying "getting 120 stars is the main goal", and "as fast as possible" the secondary. It might indeed be more clear to call "as fast as possible" the goal, and "get 120 stars" a restriction... but that wasn't the point.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1403)
Joined: 5/31/2004
Posts: 1821
moozooh wrote:
You don't get it. He wasn't suggesting doing things unoptimized. He was suggesting a different goal, one that does not put completion time as #1 priority.
Well, I mentioned all options (I think). We already have a lot of runs where speed isn't the main goal... all 100% runs for instance, but there are also no damage runs, 100% kill runs and so on. So I wouldn't really know what's really being suggested. The secondary, or third objective should probably be speed though in these cases, otherwise it would be unoptimized (which is what I mentioned).
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1403)
Joined: 5/31/2004
Posts: 1821
I don't fully get it... things like this have been suggested before.
Doing stuff unoptimized when it could be optimized is completely unacceptable... it would just be the lack of effort of the TASer. This should not be the limiting factor on entertainment. Generally, the amount of effort put into a TAS equals the amount of enjoyment people get from it.
Arbitrary goals are already accepted, as long as they are clearly defined, and produce an entertaining movie that's unlike a other published movie.
Playarounds are also already accepted, like the fighting games you mentioned, but there are also quite a few other examples.
However, just showing off how the game is like sounds like something that belongs on youtube, not TASvideos.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1403)
Joined: 5/31/2004
Posts: 1821
ShinyDoofy wrote:
I'll give this a weak yes vote. The run itself was alright, but it involved too much jumping/hitting the ceiling for my taste, you couldn't enjoy the game's music that way.
Also, why is it that you sometimes wait before you jump to get a key? Are the controls blocked or do you waste time to manipulate luck?
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1403)
Joined: 5/31/2004
Posts: 1821
arukAdo wrote:
Its not a "big" problem anyway, yeah, but if a small group of those "trash judges" could handle the problem, the whole mass (including me) would have to watch less junk, even if they are not that frequent, and doesnt polluate the bench too, this cant be a bad measure i think :p
Are the current judges so slow in dealing with them? People who watch the movie are interested in it anyway... they can see what the person has written in the submission text, and they can see the rerecord count. They can judge if they want to watch them on that information. People watching them and providing feedback will only speed up the speed at which judges can reject junk submissions. Mostly though, it's quite obvious already from the start.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1403)
Joined: 5/31/2004
Posts: 1821
I agree with Kirkq... 1 submission / day for non-players is enough to solve the so-called problem, and not obstruct the accessibility. It's not a big problem anyway though.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1403)
Joined: 5/31/2004
Posts: 1821
Sir VG wrote:
Baxter wrote:
Sir VG wrote:
I can see why this hack was initally rejected. The ending is very boring, since the viewer can't see anything and it goes on for about 2 minutes that way. Kinda stupid, IMO.
What ending?
The ending of the video (2nd quest).
Are we watching the same movie? There is one single room that goes dark... and none of the action is missed, as you can see link, all enemies and projectiles.
It is true that it's thee times basically (one is different technically, as the flames move differently) the same boss fight at the end... and one less would have also done the trick. The fights themselves are however far from redundant (Ganon's fight is just hit, wait, hit etc... this is certainly not the case for these last 3), and quite entertaining. All in all those fights don't last that long anyway. This was certainly not the reason why it was initially rejected... if this is indeed what you meant ("the viewer can't see anything" is just a load of crap) then you are the first one to mention it.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1403)
Joined: 5/31/2004
Posts: 1821
Sir VG wrote:
I can see why this hack was initally rejected. The ending is very boring, since the viewer can't see anything and it goes on for about 2 minutes that way. Kinda stupid, IMO.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1403)
Joined: 5/31/2004
Posts: 1821
Dacicus has once again outdone himself, this time by making detailed maps of all levels that are visited in the TAS. (I also posted these in the 'map'-post at the previous page where the route is explained).
Q1 Level1Q1 Level 5Q1 Level 9Q2 Level 1 or OQ2 Level 2 or UQ2 Level 3 or TQ2 Level 9 or C
(And for those who missed them, here are the maps for the first quest overworld and second overworld again.
Edit: If you like puzzles, try figuring out the path Link is supposed to take in the Level 9 dungeons.
