1) Since when has a run, which the author himself admits is sloppy, been publishworthy?
2) Since when has "brings a new console to the site" been grounds for more lenient judging, overlooking glaring sloppy play?
Is having runs of games of new consoles some kind of status symbol for us? Why is it so important and outright urgent to have this run published as soon as possible?
Note that you shouldn't rely on people having cookies enabled, either. You can enhance your site with cookies, but it should still be functional and look good without them.
That might have been an alleviating circumstance 7 years ago, but I think the site's standards have been upgraded a bit since then. The site rules do not say that TASes of new consoles should be judged more leniently.
As I said, the very first TAS of a new console is admirable, but not grounds for lowering the quality standards.
Btw, do I have the impression that many people are voting yes for the precise reason that this is the first DS submission ever? Where was that list of lousy excuses for publication, again?-)
As long as we remember that this concept cannot be applied to all games which contain glitches.
There are some games where separating "heavy glitch abuse" and "no heavy glitch abuse" versions (whatever their game-specific definition might be) makes sense and produces two enjoyable movies. However, there are many games where a less-glitched version does not contribute anything significant.
There are also some games where a less-glitched version might in theory be interesting, but where defining exactly which glitches are allowed and which aren't is very arbitrary and hard to justify in a logical manner. (As I commented earlier, trying to make a "no glitches" version of many games can become very difficult because it's really hard to define what constitutes a glitch and what doesn't.)
If this is indeed true and verifiable, I think it's grounds for immediate rejection (as it sounds like sloppy play rather than entertainment/speed tradeoffs).
Cool to have the first DS TAS, but it shouldn't have sloppy play regardless.
I suppose we could try to come up with some more or less generic rules which might be applicable to some/many overly-glitched runs, such as:
"Does not use glitches which allow major sequence breaks" (the definition of "major" being game-specific).
"Does not use glitches which corrupt the game's memory in ways unintended by the programmers."
"Does not save the game."
It's a really bad idea to load your CSS using JavaScript.
Many people use NoScript in Firefox for safety. They might not want to turn the scripts on for your site just to see if it will start making some sense then. Some people even browse with JavaScripts completely turned off.
CSS is not related in any way to JavaScript. They are completely independent. Loading CSS using JavaScript is nonsensical. Requiring JavaScript for your webpage to look good is nonsensical. Even if JavaScripts are used for something truely useful, your website should still look good even if they are turned off. (You can add one of those notes about javascripts which the browser shows if they are turned off, if you want.)
But that's precisely what makes those "rules" completely arbitrary. It's impossible (or at the very least very difficult) to come up with a generic logical rule which would forbid using those precise glitches but not others.
Something like "collects all stars" is a rational rule because it falls into a generic "100% completion" rule. In other words, it's relatively easy to state such a rule: Achieve all the goals set up by the game (even optional ones). In Mario64 the goals are collecting stars, and thus the generic rule makes sense. The game shows you with a concrete number how many stars you have collected, and thus this is completely unambiguous and easy to check.
However, "does not use the BLJ glitch" is very specific and thus arbitrary. Why is this precise glitch prohibited but other glitches allowed?
Even if the rationale of prohibiting one specific glitch is that "you get to see more of the game", what happens if later someone discovers a different glitch which achieves basically the same thing? Should it obsolete the "no-BLJ" movie? Should it be published in its own category? Should it be rejected? It's a can of worms, really.
The problem with "does not use xyz" is exactly defining xyz. In this case it's rather difficult to define what is a glitch and what isn't.
There are many things, especially in older console games, which can be attributed to programming oversights (either unintentional or intentional, because of lack of resources). For example, if you can grab a ladder one frame too early by timing your jump appropriately, is that abusing a glitch? Many people would probably say it's ok, even if it's a programming oversight not intended by the original programmers.
In contrast, is zipping (eg. in Megaman) glitch abusing or not? Many people would answer affirmatively, even though it's an intentional feature of the game engine by the programmers rather than an oversight or programming error.
So exactly what is it that would make eg. early ladder grabbing ok but zipping not ok? It's difficult to define rules which aren't completely arbitrary.
I'm not so sure it's so much about awesome code, but about abusing a language for something it was not really designed for, resulting in a rather contrived result.
Super Metroid has a special status which doesn't necessarily have to be extended to other games. (Although personally I wouldn't mind making CT another game with such special status.)
This sounds like a good suggestion, given that there are now several runs abusing this.
This got me thinking: If we wanted to create a top 10 (or 20 or whatever) list of the most representative TASes currently published, what would it be?
While taking the top 10 TASes with the highest average (or entertainment) rating would be an easy solution, it might perhaps not be diverse enough of a list to be truely representative of the diverse types of runs published. In other words, it should be more of a PR list than a "highest rated" list.
<Gratuitous nitpicking>
Seems that how closely related skunks are to ferrets is disputed. Wikipedia states:
"Skunks were formerly classified as a subfamily within the family Mustelidae, which includes weasels, otters, badgers, and relatives" [and ferrets.] "However, recent genetic evidence suggests that the skunks are not as closely related to the mustelids as previously thought, and are now classified in their own family."
</Gratuitous nitpicking>
How about making a Furret-only Pokemon run?-)
I have always understood "meh" to mean "I personally didn't care too much about this run in particular, but I see no technical reason why it shouldn't be published, as it meets the quality criteria of the site".
A "I don't care" option would be not voting at all.
"Weak yes" would be something like "yes, it's good, although..."
I'm starting to warm up to the suggestion that there's no need for a "weak no". After all, what does it mean that "meh" doesn't already convey? After all, you either object to the submission being published, or you don't. If you object, you should have (and state) some reason why not. Exactly what would "weak no" convey in this context?
How much anime have you seen anyways? Not all anime series are like Ranma 1/2 with ridiculously exaggerated expressions and actions. There are also lots of anime oriented more at eg. romantic drama which often tend to use less exaggeration.
(And of course then there's the "realistic style" anime, with all body proportions being realistic. For some reason the vast majority of them are really, really boring, even those which have a more fantasy or scifi type setting. I don't know why.)
Btw, anyone who has the misconception that all anime is targeted to kids should check some more brutal anime series such as Elfen Lied. That ought to change their opinion a bit.
Call it whatever you like, but it works.
It's the cuteness factor: Big eyes + small mouth = cute.
Have you noticed that when a cute character shouts really loudly, his mouth is drawn really big, and he stops looking cute?
Rather than posting such long source codes directly, would it be too much of trouble putting the source code somewhere else and posting a link? There are plenty of free services online for this exact purpose (even ones which don't nag you with ads nor require javascripts/referrers/cookies).