I'll be willing to vote on any movie I watch, since the question is whether or not I enjoyed the movie, not if I liked the game.
This is how I usually see it. I'll usually randomly pick out a movie of the queue when I have nothing else to do and watch it.
Fabian: Zurreco didn't kill it; he just posted a long, overwinded reply to a simple thread. As far as I'm concerned, his reply actually has no bearing on the thread other than to give the quote context (whoopee).
*023459» <Zurreco> no, i just dont think that people should vote on runs when they know nothing about the game
Well, go on, confess.
I would, except 99% of the games here I've never played. I just make a decision as to wether or not the movie I watched was entertaining and worth my time.
I'm having a hard time determining if the proper combonation is "suprise buttsecks/ohnoz teh drama!" or "ohnoz teh buttsecks/suprise drama!", but that's another story for another day.
In this case, I'm actually amused that something like this managed to stir up such a discussion.
(Will watch submission later. Maybe when I am not doing anything Gens would foul up.)
A publisher, let's call him "kat" for complete anonymity cannot publish SNES9x runs. Since kat cannot publish this run there is one less publisher available to service it. This leads to a bias.
Hence, "equipment permitting". If you cannot publish SNES9x runs because there is a problem with your SNES9x setup that you cannot fix without wasting tons of time, that would fall under what I mean. And this site has encoders out the ass.
I seem to recall one Maza managing to encode several movies that still sit there waiting for publication. What is the problem here? Now we have AVI-ready movies that aren't being published... odd, your statements suggest that we should publish those immediately, since they're done and could potentially attract more viewers.
---
Regarding your final points, waiting two-four weeks before publishing a run won't magically kill all interest in it, sorry.
One dimension of my stance is that we should not punish people for picking unknown, nonfamous games. This encourages people to only work on "big name" runs, and we would actually have very little diversification. After a while, the same games tend to get very stale... this is where diversity comes in. You can only beat the shit out of Rockman 1 before it starts getting old.
I also do not believe we should reject submissions merely because they are not well-known games... but that's another story entirely, and another reason behind my disappointment in Nesvideos.
---
While I appreciate your "grumpy gus" name-calling, I would like to say that I am not glad to have the encoders around. They do a good job, and I am glad for them. But the standards behind what they do, and the reasoning behind how it is done, is what disappoints me.
Moozoh: You are relatively correct. I would estimate that 99% of encoding time goes into "waiting". The main problem is that not all bitrates/qualities work for all movies, and in the case of an error all time was wasted and needs to be re-spent. Removing the wait times would make this trivial indeed.
And to whoever came before Moozoh: To sum up what I actually believe encoders heredo, anaogized against compressing a file:
- Generate a large file. / AVI creation.
- Open up WinRAR. / Open command prompt.
- Write in comment. / Prepend "Encoded by" and "Visit this site!" movies.
- Begin compression. / Begin encoding.
- Wait.
- Verify. / Check for errors.
- Upload.
The only difference is that, in general, videos aren't always easy to encode (audio desync, etc.). Besides that, they are nearly identical processes.
Funny, I seem to remember encoding being little more than "watch movie though, restart and hit "save as AVI", wait, run some mencoder crap, wait more, start torrent".
Granted it's a little more complicated (exact commands and crap), but for the most part it's just waiting on your system to finish encoding.
I'm not saying it's odd, and that's exactly the problem I'm talking about.
So the problem is that people are willing to vote on runs that they know stuff about and not on runs that they know nothing about? I guess people should quit submitting runs for random games then, huh?
You seem to be implying that I mean that only movies with x votes should be published. In this case, why isn't Kirby's Dreamland 2 being gobbled up by encoders and published immediately, or even accepted? It has 20 "yes" votes, after all, yet it's sat in the queue for a month.
My point is that I would rather have a set, defined waiting period of at least one week, preferrably two or three before movies are judged, and that encoding be done within a time period shortly thereafter (week or so) equipment permitting. This way "favoritism fast lane" movies aren't published immediately, and not-so-well-known movies eventually get their turn instead of rotting in the queue until someone finally decides what to do with them four months later.
Besides that, it's obvious vote count here doesn't matter anymore; movies that are very iffy will be published if the judge likes it or rejected if they don't, regardless of actual popular opinion, and Bisqwit's gavel overrules all. Voting is worthless in the scheme of judging.
The big difference is that most movies that sit in the queue for months and months are games that no one has played/the votes are too spread out. SMW is a very popular game, so many people are able to vote/judge in a short period of time.
It took 2 days to begin encoding a run that had <5 No votes and >35 Yes votes (though it's now almost double that). How is that odd to you?
I'm not saying it's odd, and that's exactly the problem I'm talking about.
I'm trying to figure out when 'skipping as much of the game as possible to complete it in the fastest time' was suddenly a no-no in tool-assisted speed runs.
Because some of us still remember and cling to the idea of tool-assisted superplay movies, which aim to show godlike play and not just to "get the lowest counter on the Nesvideos forum thread index".
Yeah, whatever. You can have your super-fast movies... I want ones I can enjoy watching.
So you think Bisqwit should have to ask our permission to publish something on his own site?
No, but when some submissions can sit in the queue for months and months <strike title="Before being swiftly rejected by adelikat for 'not having enough interest on the site'"></strike> and this passes through almost immediately...
This just brings more to the point that movies are not always judged accurately or fairly, and are instead judged with favoritism in mind.
Although while I personally disagree with this, it is a realization that there is nothing I can do <strike title="Besides going back and making a clone website with new rules"></strike>...
I would rather see a full version of the game completed. Even the original game's movie completes all levels. This one feels lacking. I can't help but feel that Gamemakr24 would be simultaneously suprised, but disappointed in this TAS. Perhaps we should instead create a movie that used less glitches and manages to complete the game as it was meant to be played.
p.s. The SDW any% didn't explicitly skip many levels that were meant to be played, nor abused huge bugs to skip 99% of the game.
Voting: Yes...
I was entertained though most of the movie and enjoyed it, but it felt very lacking. I don't believe this should be the only movie if it's accepted.
This site would not accept such a run, but if it is just for fun than knock yourself out.
Slowdown in snes9x is usually the "-" and "=" buttons, but frame advance, which is "\", is much better.
If a run had arbitrary rules that made the game more interesting to watch, why wouldn't it be accepted? This site is about "entertainment."
Wrong. It hasn't been much about entertainment for some time, minus rare upheavals like River City Ransom. Only "the numbers indiciating our length are lower" matter here.
Entertainment died. Entertainment cannot be summed up by a simple, easy-to-compare number (despite what the ratings try to show), so nobody likes using it to judge submissions. Hence why the only "good" goals are "fastest time though any route possible" or "fastest with 100%", occasonally expanded for popular games.
In any case, although the goals (as little jumping as possible? ...) sound a little insane, feel free to go ahead. I'll watch this movie later tomorrow if I'm not busy... who knows, maybe it could be interesting.
Puzzle Mode would be kind of boring, unless you could think of new, weird solutions to the later puzzles that aren't normally possible without slowdown/dumb luck.
I don't see this going anywhere, sorry :(
If anyone missed it earlier in this thread, my run can be found here ... it goes up to corridor 5 (near the boss) and it's a 100% run (all corridors, minibosses, max upgrades, etc.), but it hasn't been updated for nearly half a year ...
Any plans to, uh, update it? It was fun to watch, although after lightly bothering you about it for most of that half-year I'm losing hope.
Whoever voted no on this, would you please care to tell why you thought this run wasn't enjoyable?
Xkeeper wrote:
Soulrivers wrote:
Xkeeper wrote:
No, it is partially your fault. Turbo-Aing to the point that an entire channel of music is gone, as well as using a character that changes the theme to one song for 50% of the game, greatly reduces my enjoyment of the run.
Sorry.
Actually turboing A with the owl doesn't remove any sound - it makes no sound in the first place. This is however true for the fish, which isn't even used that much. I also cannot understand how it is my fault for picking the fastest way of travel?
Fast ≠ entertaining
not entertaining ≠ enjoyable to watch
Therefore I voted no.
And in any case, it still removes music and it makes the game play the same song too damn much.
Reading is fundamental!
To nictpick, I actually said "Meh." as an "undecided-I-didn't-really-like-it-but-I'm-not-voting-yet" bit.
As you can see I actually voted no.
In any case, it's distressing to see that this was even a reply to the very person who asked the damn question in the first place.
That's actually a Game Boy Color button code (there are many others like it, actually, and it works on all B&W games inserted into a GBC).
Unless this is acatually in the game, I don't see it being used. Sorry.
This is one of those "shut your brain off and watch" TASes.
Although I do agree that a score attack would be a little more interesting, provided it wasn't just "fill the playfield with junk and clear the screen all at once".
Regardless my vote falls on the line between "meh" and "yes".
* Xkeeper looks at submision name list
I'll have to watch this later, but the thread comments aren't exactly... helping.
(also: Rarely do I steal an emoticon to use here, but...)
Upon actually watching the submission, big stinking "No" vote here.
Watching you do the same thing over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, to beat the whole game gets old fast.
So, no.
Oh, and this topic should probably go to the NES-section. We are talking about Pac-man for NES here, right?
No, the arcade one. Sorry.
stickyman05 wrote:
As a previous post stated, there are cheats that let you skip levels... but for some reason my MAME wont let me load from a savestate, evidentally it was corrupted. Whether or not this is the cheat file's fault is unknown, but is there anyone 1337 enough with MAME to figure out wtf happened with the save file/offer a solution?
There's a dipswitch that auto-clears every board. Just set it and fast forward, snapshotting every now and then. It takes a minute or so tops.
I'll have to watch this later, but the thread comments aren't exactly... helping.
(also: Rarely do I steal an emoticon to use here, but...)
Upon actually watching the submission, big stinking "No" vote here.
Watching you do the same thing over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, to beat the whole game gets old fast.
So, no.
