Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(70)
Joined: 8/13/2004
Posts: 205
adelikat wrote:
For the record I am voting no. This is an obvious cheat code and therefore breaks the rules of the site. Not that my voting means anything at this point, but still...
Yes, I question what the difference is between doing this and doing the Konami code.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(70)
Joined: 8/13/2004
Posts: 205
There's a difference betwen glitching a finishing move in a fighting game to be more entertaining and glitching a long game to be done in seconds by walking through walls right to the ending.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(70)
Joined: 8/13/2004
Posts: 205
jimsfriend wrote:
The guidelines might help. Here is a link to it for your convenience. Pay special attention to the "Be quick," "Do something unexpected," and "Be interesting" sections. Also, feel free to make your own run without glitches and submit it.
And how does reading that make this run actually interesting to watch?
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(70)
Joined: 8/13/2004
Posts: 205
You're certainly right, I dislike the current run also. I'm not planning on getting anything unpublished, there are plenty that like these runs. But more traditional runs should coexist with them.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(70)
Joined: 8/13/2004
Posts: 205
Warp wrote:
The whole point in TAS runs is to try to find the most optimal way of completing the game using *any* available tools. What those tools are is irrelevant: The goal is to find the optimal list of keypresses to complete the game in the minimum number of frames.
The point of a TAS is to produce results as close to possible as what a robot built to play games optimally would make. Wouldn't you say it makes perfect sense to have a program TAS for you as much as possible?
No and No
The point of a TAS is to use tools to create a movie that is BOTH fast and fun to watch.
watching mega man zoom through walls at high speed and glitch the screen may be the fastest route to wily, but i see no difference between that and the circle of the moon/zelda 2/zelda 3 glitch runs.
My point is not that I totally hate glitch runs. Sonic 3 + Knuckles and Simons Quest are 2 of my favorite runs that heavily abuse glitches
However runs that break the game to this extent should not "obsolete" runs that play the game perfectly, flawlessly and ARTISTICALLY.
One example of what I feel is the lessening artistry in TASes is the motto of "if it's faster to just ram into the enemy and take the damage than it is to skillfully dodge it, then do that" It's fast yes, but it looks bad. The only times you should go letting enemies hit you is if it lets you skip a large section (like castlevania) or if managing your health in that way makes it exciting (circle of the moon nonglitched run)
Another is this "zip through walls" nonsense. I'll admit when the first mega man 1 glitch run came out I thought it was pretty cool...but the novelty has run out. Now all I see is a game that's so broken that it's almost unrecognizable as a person playing mega man.
And lastly the whole "oh go to SDA, noob" attitude really bothers me. SDA shows human acheivement, and this site is about perfection. That much goes without saying. However I see nothing perfect about forcing mega man into a ceiling and just watching him skip huge chunks of level. It's not interesting anymore and it's not fun. Sure, you could go to SDA, but the point of TAS runs is to watch something flawless, like...say how "God" would play video games, to make something hard look easy, to make something boring look fun or just to be creative. Forcing characters into walls is severely lacking in creativity.
Since I can see thsi problem is much worse than I thought, I'm no longer abstaining. I'm voting no.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(70)
Joined: 8/13/2004
Posts: 205
The Sonic 3+Knuckles run was pretty sweet even though I'd prefer if it wasn't SO broken, but it at least showed most of the game. probably the only part that irked me was completely skipping the ice cap zone
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(70)
Joined: 8/13/2004
Posts: 205
I'm abstainin. The game is so broken that it's barely watchable. Remember when speedruns were fun to watch becuase you saw someone playing hard games like Mega Man flawlessly? Now when people make speedruns they forget the "fun" and focus only on speed. So instead of something like, for example, morimoto's absolutely wonderful rockman 2 run where he destroyed the game by doing it lightning quick and not getting hit, which looks great, we get runs that just have rock zipping through walls at lightning speed, walking through enemies and glitching up the screen so badly that you can't tell what's going on.
As far as I'm concerned this is the same category as glitched runs of zelda 2, zelda 3, castlevania circle of the moon and rygar.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(70)
Joined: 8/13/2004
Posts: 205
JXQ wrote:
Yeah, don't bring light to the issue, because then you're a lousy no-good complainer who's flaming the forums. Instead, sidestep it, and hope it goes away. Very effective.
Passive Aggression (Don't Do It)
Passive aggression, as defined here, is the highly annoying and frustrating tactic of saying the opposite of what you mean in order to keep discussions peaceful and not appearing to be a troublemaker or to cause conflict, but implying heavily what you really mean through dissembling, indirect speech and the spreading of guilt to others for having opinions that differ from yours. This isn't necessarily a conscious behavior, as those exhibiting it may honestly be trying to keep the peace rather than being deceptive, but one must be on guard for this.
At least three quarters of every tube within the Internets is stuffed full of passive aggressive people, because the Internets allow the aggression of interacting with people while also necessitating the passivity of not having to look at or hear the people you are interacting with. People who spend a lot of time on the Internets are, in a general sense, not good at and don't entirely grasp the workings of interpersonal relationships. It helps to remember this, and respond accordingly when confronted with these situations.
Honesty and flexibility are required to combat this problem. You have to be able to be honest without being a self-righteous dick about it. It may rankle one's sense of justice, but there's a difference between coddling someone and just being polite and disarming. Couching your statements in language that indicates you're not being insulting or goading goes a long way towards keeping emotions at an even keel. Sometimes it's a subtle thing, other times, it's obvious.
Which would you rather see in response to something you've written?
"Sorry, let me clarify, I actually meant that I find melted cheese to be a delicious substitute for personal lubricants."
or
"You misunderstand. I clearly meant that melted cheese is great lube, but you've misconstrued what I said."
Both statements saying the same thing, but the former is not assigning blame or being condescending, and is a polite way to defuse a potential annoyance while furthering a calm debate.
Those exhibiting passive-aggressive behavior have trouble adhering to this notion, as well as the rule of keeping a proper perspective. If an argumentative and mildly condescending post like the latter example above does manage to get through someone's personal manners-filter, perhaps defensive in tone but clearly on a relatively insignificant and harmless topic, the passive-aggressive person will often overreact to this terrifyng threat of confrontation, retreating with over-concession and massive abuse of the smiley emoticon until it reeks of insincerity.
"I'm sorry, you're right. :)"
"Really, it's okay. :) Cheese is probably much better than what I was thinking. :)"
"In fact, maybe I'll go get some cheese :) Try it out :) Prove you right :) Never mind what I said :)"
This would be the passive part. They will not go get cheese or try it out.
This is followed later by statements like:
"Wow, this cheese is... never mind. :) No, whatever people want is fine. :) No, it's just... it's fine. Whatever, it's fine. :) I mean, I've never used it and won't so I don't really feel like I'm... but whatever, it's fine. :) I thought we were going to use the other thing, but it's fine. :) Just tell me what you want me to do. :)"
Repeated occurrences of this sort of thing have the effect of spreading guilt for disagreeing with the person, while at the same time serving to derail and drag down the cheese lubricant scene until it's no fun for anyone involved, even the people that enjoy cheese, because it can eventually come to feel like pulling teeth to get a solid, unequivocal response. The PA person may feel as though they're being peaceful and mitigating and a good sport, and on the surface, that's what the words mean, but in actuality, it serves to frustrate the people trying to work with them.
There are ways to have a civil debate without tempers flaring, but it requires honesty - the polite sort of honesty discussed above (as well as perhaps some cooling-off time before the debate, to vent negative emotions). If an honest impasse is reached after such a thing, well, this is where flexibility comes in. Perspective helps to realize any big impasse about a role-playing game on the Internets is really not THAT important to be stubborn about, and being flexible enough to find a workable compromise helps to legitimately keep the peace. It also requires you do not then proceed to start whining, however subtly, about not getting your way. This is key. This is called being an adult.
The Wiki definition of passive aggression is "passive, sometimes obstructionist resistance to authoritative instructions in interpersonal or occupational situations. Sometimes a method of dealing with stress or frustration, it results in the person attacking other people in subtle, indirect, and seemingly passive ways." It's as though the PA person is subtly, passively, indirectly punishing people for not agreeing with them, and hoping that will make the punished change their minds over to the PA person's point of view.
Another form of passive aggression is claiming you're not doing exactly what you're doing. Bill O'Reilly specializes in this.
"Have you ever heard of this obscure little factoid that I know? You haven't. Of course you haven't. But I'm not being condescending here."
1.) He is absolutely being condescending.
2.) If the factoid is obscure enough, it's indistinguishable from the truth, which gives him the imaginary leverage to argue his point. When you lie, make it something that won't be proven wrong unless someone goes out and actually does research on it. The proof of the lie will never find a public forum after the initial confrontation anyway, because everyone's attention span is too short for it.
(Another thing Bill O'Reilly does is that 'I am speaking with truth and knowledge' voice, when saying even the most inane things. Like he was talking about Al Franken's book and calling him "vicious, and that's with a capital V." In that same "I know all" tone of voice, and that's the lamest adjective-modifying phrase ever when defending yourself from someone who's just called you an out-and-out liar, but I digress).
Saying you're doing the opposite of what you're doing. As if acknowledging the bad impression someone might be getting from you excuses you from making that impression.
"I know I'm partially to blame here, but you caused this yourself."
You are not actually taking any blame.
"I know you want to do this with that other player. It's okay, I don't mind."
You are implying that you should get to approve how other people spend their time.
"I know I have made mistakes, but you people are all ratpacking on me by telling me I've made them."
The problem is the mistakes, not the people pointing them out.
"Oh, I don't care. You decide."
You had really better not care, and you can't complain if you don't like the decision. Putting the choice in someone else's hands does not give you the right to bitch at them if you don't like what they choose.
Passive aggression is essentially dishonesty. Dishonesty contributes to drama.
Be honest and direct, but don't be a jerk about it. Be polite. Don't be intractable. Flexibility and the ability to let things roll off your back are crucial. Save the strong, self-righteous stances for actual important real-life issues. Is this really so hard?
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(70)
Joined: 8/13/2004
Posts: 205
Let me be the first to say that the correlation of this run and Pom's run is similar to the Crystalis runs, one has "whacky warp" the other doesn't Hence, they co-exist
The difference is, this run is actually interesting.
How about stopping all the pointless bickering by renaming the "concept/others" section to the "weird shit" section. Then you could all stop flinging feces at each other.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(70)
Joined: 8/13/2004
Posts: 205
There's nothing more annoying than people who come into a thread to tell people "omg use the search feature!!!11"
It's just 2 mintues of their time that could be spent doing something better.
Anyway, as for the game, it would most likely be terrible because the TASer would probably not use lightbulbs in the sewers
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(70)
Joined: 8/13/2004
Posts: 205
this is like, 6 minutes faster than the currently published run. If it's not good enough, then neither is the current run.
It was also about 10 more fun to watch than published runs on games like crystalis, final fantasy 6, adventure island and all the ridiculously broken glitch runs
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(70)
Joined: 8/13/2004
Posts: 205
voting yes, although i'm sure this will get rejected for some inane reason.
I've tried to play this game many times and never managed to get any sort of progress in it, so it's impressive and entertaining for me to see it beaten so quickly
Which would you rather see in response to something you've written?
"Sorry, let me clarify, I actually meant that I find melted cheese to be a delicious substitute for personal lubricants."
or
"You misunderstand. I clearly meant that melted cheese is great lube, but you've misconstrued what I said."
Both statements saying the same thing, but the former is not assigning blame or being condescending, and is a polite way to defuse a potential annoyance while furthering a calm debate.
Those exhibiting passive-aggressive behavior have trouble adhering to this notion, as well as the rule of keeping a proper perspective. If an argumentative and mildly condescending post like the latter example above does manage to get through someone's personal manners-filter, perhaps defensive in tone but clearly on a relatively insignificant and harmless topic, the passive-aggressive person will often overreact to this terrifyng threat of confrontation, retreating with over-concession and massive abuse of the smiley emoticon until it reeks of insincerity.
"I'm sorry, you're right. :)"
"Really, it's okay. :) Cheese is probably much better than what I was thinking. :)"
"In fact, maybe I'll go get some cheese :) Try it out :) Prove you right :) Never mind what I said :)"
This would be the passive part. They will not go get cheese or try it out.
This is followed later by statements like:
"Wow, this cheese is... never mind. :) No, whatever people want is fine. :) No, it's just... it's fine. Whatever, it's fine. :) I mean, I've never used it and won't so I don't really feel like I'm... but whatever, it's fine. :) I thought we were going to use the other thing, but it's fine. :) Just tell me what you want me to do. :)"
Repeated occurrences of this sort of thing have the effect of spreading guilt for disagreeing with the person, while at the same time serving to derail and drag down the cheese lubricant scene until it's no fun for anyone involved, even the people that enjoy cheese, because it can eventually come to feel like pulling teeth to get a solid, unequivocal response. The PA person may feel as though they're being peaceful and mitigating and a good sport, and on the surface, that's what the words mean, but in actuality, it serves to frustrate the people trying to work with them.
There are ways to have a civil debate without tempers flaring, but it requires honesty - the polite sort of honesty discussed above (as well as perhaps some cooling-off time before the debate, to vent negative emotions). If an honest impasse is reached after such a thing, well, this is where flexibility comes in. Perspective helps to realize any big impasse about a role-playing game on the Internets is really not THAT important to be stubborn about, and being flexible enough to find a workable compromise helps to legitimately keep the peace. It also requires you do not then proceed to start whining, however subtly, about not getting your way. This is key. This is called being an adult.
The Wiki definition of passive aggression is "passive, sometimes obstructionist resistance to authoritative instructions in interpersonal or occupational situations. Sometimes a method of dealing with stress or frustration, it results in the person attacking other people in subtle, indirect, and seemingly passive ways." It's as though the PA person is subtly, passively, indirectly punishing people for not agreeing with them, and hoping that will make the punished change their minds over to the PA person's point of view.
Another form of passive aggression is claiming you're not doing exactly what you're doing. Bill O'Reilly specializes in this.
"Have you ever heard of this obscure little factoid that I know? You haven't. Of course you haven't. But I'm not being condescending here."
1.) He is absolutely being condescending.
2.) If the factoid is obscure enough, it's indistinguishable from the truth, which gives him the imaginary leverage to argue his point. When you lie, make it something that won't be proven wrong unless someone goes out and actually does research on it. The proof of the lie will never find a public forum after the initial confrontation anyway, because everyone's attention span is too short for it.
(Another thing Bill O'Reilly does is that 'I am speaking with truth and knowledge' voice, when saying even the most inane things. Like he was talking about Al Franken's book and calling him "vicious, and that's with a capital V." In that same "I know all" tone of voice, and that's the lamest adjective-modifying phrase ever when defending yourself from someone who's just called you an out-and-out liar, but I digress).
Saying you're doing the opposite of what you're doing. As if acknowledging the bad impression someone might be getting from you excuses you from making that impression.
"I know I'm partially to blame here, but you caused this yourself."
You are not actually taking any blame.
"I know you want to do this with that other player. It's okay, I don't mind."
You are implying that you should get to approve how other people spend their time.
"I know I have made mistakes, but you people are all ratpacking on me by telling me I've made them."
The problem is the mistakes, not the people pointing them out.
"Oh, I don't care. You decide."
You had really better not care, and you can't complain if you don't like the decision. Putting the choice in someone else's hands does not give you the right to bitch at them if you don't like what they choose.
Passive aggression is essentially dishonesty. Dishonesty contributes to drama.
Be honest and direct, but don't be a jerk about it. Be polite. Don't be intractable. Flexibility and the ability to let things roll off your back are crucial. Save the strong, self-righteous stances for actual important real-life issues. Is this really so hard?