Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Enough of this insanity.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Kuwaga wrote:
If you completely refute this post and I won't argue against it, it means I'll have silently admitted defeat.
Or that something unfortunate happened to you and you're no longer coming back. Or perhaps the refutation is so mindbogglingly idiotic that you've lost all will to bother responding to it.
So let's clarify, if you intelligently completely refute this post ... and I'm still around here ...
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Dyshonest wrote:
http://tasvideos.org/Nach/Arguing.html <-- How on earth do you manage to not include ad hominem in this Nach? You include other argument stereotypes but forget personal attacks...?
I don't view personal attacks as something which conforms to: highly polished debating techniques make it appear to the untrained eye as though one is winning an argument, while in fact they are simply reconstructing, redefining, or redirecting the argument in order to make themselves the victor.
Personal attacks are obvious to everyone involved that the argument is no longer being argued.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Radiant wrote:
Good point; although I would argue to allow both games.
Oh, for sure we'd actually publish both.
I just wanted to ensure your generalization wasn't applied in too far flung a manner.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Radiant wrote:
Nach wrote:
Yet in the early DOS games, "My own tetris clone #24601" would be featured prominently for sale in computer stores, and possibly even bought up by a larger company.
Sure. But if a game is featured prominently in computer stores, then it should easily be notable enough for a run on the site here. Likewise if it got bought up by a larger company.
My point is that these aren't criteria to exclude large amounts of games, but rather that games must show a reason to be included on the site. An official license (e.g. Super Metroid) is such a reason. Being extremely famous (e.g. Cave Story) is another such a reason. If a game is neither licensed nor famous, well perhaps there's another reason to include it anyway, but if we can't find such a reason, the game doesn't get a run on TASvideos. Here's some precedent for that.
Well said.
I'd just point out that some very early DOS games that were from what later became real companies, like the Kroz series, is a poor game compared to say the Skunny series, by authors who never developed into a reputable game publisher.
I'd be more likely to accept a TAS of a Skunny game than a Kroz, so I wouldn't blindly just look at who the publisher is for early DOS games. But overall, I agree with you.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Dyshonest wrote:
That's quite unfortunate, do you have a history of eyesight problems?
I do, thank you for asking.
Dyshonest wrote:
I am pretty sure a game revolving around flight is vastly different than one that is not.
Yet you fail to see that the levels are identical and the only large difference is whether you can midair jump or not? You don't see how one hacked a slight feature in the other and called it a day?
Dyshonest wrote:
That differentiates itself from a ROM hack... how?
That you're equating the differences between Air 1 and Air 2 with SMB and SMB2J has made you lose all credibility in my eyes, my rather poor eyes at that.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Dyshonest wrote:
Or make some small changes to a pre-existing hack and call it a new one, which is precisely what Air 2 is to Air 1.
Um... no? Air 2 is completely different from 1.
How so? Looks the same to me.
Dyshonest wrote:
And Mario 2j was to Mario 1.
Oh, but it had "official" quality control.
They had quality control, but also were very different games, in their levels, in some graphics, in the physics engine for Luigi, in having wind, in having upside down pipes, in having backwards warps, in having poison mushrooms, need I go on?
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Radiant wrote:
For example, Commander Keen counts as the equivalent of licensed (as it is published commercially by Apogee), as does Doom 3 (published by Activision), whereas "My own tetris clone #24601" does not.
Yet in the early DOS games, "My own tetris clone #24601" would be featured prominently for sale in computer stores, and possibly even bought up by a larger company.
In the early DOS days, many games where written together by 1-3 friends as a hobby on the side, yet sold commercially at some point.
For The Microsoft Entertainment Pack for example, Microsoft found a series of games developed for Windows by a single person, and bought them all up and put them in a single compilation.
As time progressed, the PC platform ended up showing a large divide between the hobbyists and the commercial as you describe, but way back, they started out being the same thing.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
scrimpeh wrote:
Tasvideos can afford to be inclusionist for official games because the number of officially licensed and published games is most certainly finite. The number of hacks is not. This is part of the quality control argument, as you can make a TAS for any possible hack and claim it's entertaining enough to be published.
To add to what you're saying. You can make hacks of hacks as well. Or make some small changes to a pre-existing hack and call it a new one, which is precisely what Air 2 is to Air 1.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Radiant wrote:
or unlicensed games (e.g. Cave Story)
Before the advent of Windows 8 with its store, there was no licensing for Windows. So every game is unlicensed, be it Cave Story or Doom 3.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Dyshonest wrote:
Did you read the proposal and discussion in the thread Mothrayas pointed to, or just the first post and the poll itself, ignoring the proposal paper and the discussion?
Nobody said hacks aren't games. However hacks are much more likely to be garbage than a published game from a company looking to stay in business.
I really don't care to read a topic that, apparently, diverges far, far off of what the poll was intended to do.
The poll was intended to know how people feel about the proposal. However, as you like to do, invent your own points.
Dyshonest wrote:
Again, you're using poor-quality hacks as a norm.
Newsflash! They are the norm!
Dyshonest wrote:
Thanks for taking "quality control" and turning into "ensuring completion is possible".
Quite obviously "quality control" for a Kaizo hack means it's actually completeable. The whole point is for it to be masochistically hard, not aesthetically pleasing.
That is not what "quality control" means, and it does not change its meaning based on the game.
Quality control is a bureaucratic process which ensures certain criteria are met. Nintendo and Apple are well known examples of companies that refuses to allow publication of software to their platforms without a special review process to weed out bugs, ensure a certain level of usability, and more.
Dyshonest wrote:
and experience has indicated will occur in the future
Did you use auto-translate here or is this some weird auto-correct/missing words?
Nope.
Dyshonest wrote:
How is one supposed to control the quality of hacks and unlicensed games?
How do you do that for licensed games? Don't ask redundant/pointless questions.
Licensed games have a whole quality control committee, and the platform owner has their own process as well.
For hacks, there is generally no internal quality control committee, and any QC enforced by the platform owner is bypassed.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Dyshonest wrote:
Not sure why you bold/underline/italic the "if". Yes, hacks are forced to follow such rules. And we won't force the same rules for all games because the majority in that poll disagreed with that, and we now have a tier system to accomodate for that.
Are hacks not games or am I missing something here?
Did you read the proposal and discussion in the thread Mothrayas pointed to, or just the first post and the poll itself, ignoring the proposal paper and the discussion?
Nobody said hacks aren't games. However hacks are much more likely to be garbage than a published game from a company looking to stay in business.
Dyshonest wrote:
I already explained several times (again) why that isn't possible, as did Nach. There is no quality control on hacks or unlicensed games.
Because games that DO have it end up so well...
Good hacks, like SDW or Rockman 4 Minus Infinity and others WERE tested, and yes, even the only "half-decent" ones like Air/2/HRM were extensively tested because people had to make sure they could be finished! Gaaasp!
Think of a better reason next time. maybe try something that's true?
I'm calling you out on using technique #9.
Thanks for taking "quality control" and turning into "ensuring completion is possible".
Dyshonest wrote:
You keep stating potential as impossibility. Exactly as you say, you won't know until it happens.
Which do you prefer, playing it safe to avoid potential management nightmares, or opening the door because any possible problems are "hypotheticals"?
Trying to avoid nightmares that will likely never happen at the expense of entertainment makes no sense. Deal with things when they're an issue. It's not like it would be a serious problem even if it did occur.
Thanks for your opinion. We'll continue doing what we have experience with, and experience has indicated will occur in the future, and how best to manage the site.
Dyshonest wrote:
including a poll showing the majority of people disagree with applying such scrutiny to licensed games. So this is entirely irrelevant.
Perhaps you should read what YOU post for once?
http://tasvideos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=13395
Should game choice be abolished as a rejection reason?
Should game choice [...]
game choice [...]
This mentions... what, exactly, about ANYTHING you keep claiming it preaches? Nothing. Jack-squat. It mentions game choice and that's it.
Have you read the proposal? Or read the ensuing discussion?
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
xnamkcor wrote:
Nach wrote:
My reading of xnamkcor's posts here are that we should allow all hacks.
No, I'm saying that obsoleting hacks with different hacks is horrible database protocol.
Then I don't understand what you're saying.
I'll refrain from replying further.
If someone else understands the points xnamkcor is making, feel free to respond to him.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Dyshonest wrote:
We have no policy for unpublishing a movie. We also very much treat runs as legal issues, and have a legislation system (rules), and rely on precedent.
Sure things can change in the future, but this is the system we have now, and it works pretty good, aside from the occasional pothole or hurdle.
Overcomplicating things for the sake of doing so isn't a good reason, and you literally just said that things will remain overcomplicated for the sake of it because they were, at one point, overcomplicated.
I agree with your logic. Which is why we will continue doing what we're doing, because it's less complicated that way.
If your approach was the one that was less complicated we would have used it long ago. We computer people running the site are lazy at heart and like as little complication as possible.
Dyshonest wrote:
You're (poorly) using hyperbole in an attempt to try to prove something wrong but no one has ever eluded to allowing all hacks.
My reading of xnamkcor's posts here are that we should allow all hacks.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
xnamkcor wrote:
If you're keeping it to a minimum, why does the vault exist?
1) To rectify some past poor decisions.
2) An overwhelming amount of our users wanted us to keep track of TAS speed records for well known games that see speed-run competitions, even though the runs themselves aren't all that entertaining.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Dyshonest wrote:
Such poor decisions, as you put it, shouldn't be made.
You're right, but I don't have a time machine to undo it. Many poor decisions also only turned out to be poor in retrospect, but seemed reasonable at the time they were made.
Dyshonest wrote:
Or rather, if they are... why is it such a big deal to revoke something or just leave things where they are? It's not like we're dealing with political bills over here, it's simple movies. Changes can be made very easily...
We have no policy for unpublishing a movie. We also very much treat runs as legal issues, and have a legislation system (rules), and rely on precedent.
Sure things can change in the future, but this is the system we have now, and it works pretty good, aside from the occasional pothole or hurdle.
Dyshonest wrote:
As far as I can tell the videos here are for entertainment value first and documentation (i.e.: the non-entertaining "to the vault" movies) second. Even a lot of the stereotyped, poorly-made Kaizo hacks are more entertaining than a lot of games here (fighting games, endless autoscrollers, bad games like E.T., etc). Why do hacks get treated differently? The game engine? There's more to a game than that.
Until recently, we rejected bad games too. It wasn't until the introduction of the vault (where we disallow hacks) could poorer games be accepted.
Hacks get treated differently because there's a lack of quality control on the creation of them. We mitigate featuring a slew of garbage on the site by applying a quality control process to runs of hacks and unlicensed games.
xnamkcor wrote:
Nach wrote:
xnamkcor wrote:
I don't care if it's "tradition" that a certain number of hacks can exist for a game and if too many show up your make a new hack obsolete an old hack. It's horrible database protocol.
I'm not crazy about what we do either, but the alternative means that we have no way to obsolete bad hacks that were published by poor judgment, and that hacks like these would never get published.
To put differently, if we take your approach of not allowing cross-hack obsoletion, this site would not have Air2, Hard Relay Mario, or several other hacks that we've published.
Are we running out of space?
Stop making it about space. If you read what Mothrayas was saying about organization, the judge comments, or other things I said in regards to this, it's about keeping garbage on our site to a minimum, as well as exposure thereof.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
xnamkcor wrote:
I don't care if it's "tradition" that a certain number of hacks can exist for a game and if too many show up your make a new hack obsolete an old hack. It's horrible database protocol.
I'm not crazy about what we do either, but the alternative means that we have no way to obsolete bad hacks that were published by poor judgment, and that hacks like these would never get published.
To put differently, if we take your approach of not allowing cross-hack obsoletion, this site would not have Air2, Hard Relay Mario, or several other hacks that we've published.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
xnamkcor wrote:
If Air 2 wasn't good enough to get published how did it get obsoleted? Doesn't being obsoleted mean that at one time it has a published entry?
You're making me wonder if you've spent any significant amount of time using our site, such as clicking buttons linking to obsoleted entries.
xnamkcor wrote:
And if the new one isn't good enough, why is it now published?
As I told you already, read the judge comments. Since you're new to the site as your previous comment demonstrates, on each published run, click on "Submission - Author's Comments", and at the bottom, you'll see why judges did what they did.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
xnamkcor wrote:
And Air 2 was good enough to get published, and this new one was good enough to get published, right?
No they weren't, see the judge comments.
They're good enough to improve past poor decisions, not good enough on their own. It has been standard practice on the site for several years now to obsolete lesser hacks with better ones.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
xnamkcor wrote:
Is today backwards day? Both of today's "Added" runs have a longer listed time than what they "obsoleted".
Your eyes must be going bad, this is a cross-hack obsoletion, and therefore the time isn't relavent.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
xnamkcor wrote:
Are my eyes going bad, or does this have a longer time than what it obsoleted? Should we put in the description why that is?
Look at the frame count on each submission this run is shorter than what it obsoletes.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Here's an interesting article which explains some simple techniques to avoid many common memory management problems in C without much effort at all.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
If you're having trouble with this, perhaps try the SNES or Windows version?
Also, the PSX version exists in NTSC version to my knowledge.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Spikestuff wrote:
I wrote that I'm blaming the Kooper for killing the entertainment as a thing I will mainly blame (as a kinda joke).
Even if you weren't joking, you're still entitled to your opinion, so argue what I said above if you feel otherwise.
Spikestuff wrote:
My other reason is because it felt a bit too slow for me for some reason.
By "it" here, do you mean the run as a whole? Because in that, I agree with you. Seeing a classic NES Mario game, I'm expecting a platformer, and this platformer puzzle genre just feels slow, even though it isn't.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
HappyLee wrote:
I think it's just a very small part of the run, which is not worth focusing on.
I think this is a key point here. Sure, waiting for the Koopa to revive is annoying, but what percentage of the run does it take up, ~2% of the ~8 minutes? If something this miniscule bothers someone to the extent they think it drags down the entire rest of the movie, then they probably need some kind of therapy. I mean seriously, even our best runs have moments of small down time waiting for a boss to awaken or something else of this nature. Did we get so used to some recent examples of incredibly short movies and beating games in 5 seconds that no one has the patience anymore for a moment of downtime?
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
