Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Former player
Joined: 8/1/2004
Posts: 2687
Location: Seattle, WA
That's definitely an interesting glitch. If it's reproducible, every fight that can be moved to the front rows can be chopped to pieces fairly quickly.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Former player
Joined: 8/1/2004
Posts: 2687
Location: Seattle, WA
I'm inclined to agree with Kyrsimys on the problem with the site ethos. That is the main concern that everyone should be focusing on. I prefer the old community, but only because I knew that the people who were there were there for the site.
However, here are some ramblings. The site has changed a lot in the 5+ years I've been around. Some things good, which were welcomed with somewhat open arms. Some things bad, which I feel I attempted to dissuade (along with others) and failed. So long as the consensus of the site was that we are doing this as a means of entertainment and expression through research and merit, rather than just getting low times in order to get our names published.
In the last few years, though, it seems like that whole ethos has been lost. I don't know if it's been drowned out in too many new and, to be honest, inexperienced opinions. It may be that we still try to treat the community as egalitarian, when it is so obvious that there are some people who deserve more sway than others. Hell, maybe it's just because there are too many people like AngerFist and myself: those who have strong opinions and are willing to go to it on the forums to make sure there is enough discourse. Either way, things seem to be taking the wrong direction as of late. It's the reason why a lot of people seem to come and go.
People just need to keep things in perspective. The change in voting is silly, and I've said my piece on that, but it keeps the concept out there. There are other things running afoul in the community, and I think those would be better suited for addressing. I'm looking at you, anyone who registered in the last 24 months.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Former player
Joined: 8/1/2004
Posts: 2687
Location: Seattle, WA
Watched all the way through. I did turbo through portions of the run, but most of this was fairly enjoyable. There were also a few parts that looked like you could have swung for more speed, but I'm too lazy to go back and get frame counts, so I'll assume you tested it properly.
Good job destroying Exilant's old run, though.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Former player
Joined: 8/1/2004
Posts: 2687
Location: Seattle, WA
You don't seem to mention the ROM. You need to ROM of the game you want to watch.
Two things I should mention:
1) .m64 files, much like the .smv/.fcx/etc files we host on this site, are not video recordings. They are actually input recordings. The way you replay videos is by loading the game and allowing the .m64 to play the game in the exact same manner that the runner did. In order to do this, you need the game itself (in ROM format).
2) It would behoove you to use better thread titles. "A question" could mean anything. Not that it's a huge deal, but at least you'll get better feedback if you had named it "Can't play .m64 file," or something of that matter.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Former player
Joined: 8/1/2004
Posts: 2687
Location: Seattle, WA
Make one glitched submission and one "normal" submission (no gamebreaking glitches like the no-encounter deely). Game Over should be used when you have it, since you won't really have it until towards the end of the game anyways.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Former player
Joined: 8/1/2004
Posts: 2687
Location: Seattle, WA
The fact that they pay at all should be enough to shut most people up. It's one day every two years where you get to do some civil service and earn your place in society. I'll never understand why people are so vehemently against having to go to a courthouse and do something for society, rather than having society do something for them.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Former player
Joined: 8/1/2004
Posts: 2687
Location: Seattle, WA
AKA wrote:
Nah, Just tell them your prejudiced against all races :P
It is now illegal to do this in many courts in the US. Showing up to Jury Duty and actively using racial epithets/claiming that you favor one race over another can easily earn you a contempt charge, since jury proceedings are considered an action of the courts themselves.
Also, Jury Duty is rad. I don't know why you would want to avoid it. You get paid money to sit in a big room and dick around until they call you in to a room, and then you get an open forum to tell people what you think about things until they eventually tell you that you aren't the experienced and compassionate middle class worker that they are looking for.
e: I hope you know that you'll also get Jury Duty for owning a license to drive.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Former player
Joined: 8/1/2004
Posts: 2687
Location: Seattle, WA
Normally, we wouldn't be so hard on him, but he keeps making statements like this one.
Saturn wrote:
a game completion of only 0:27 minutes, which is the fastest time possible for this kind of run
It's pretty arrogant, and almost all definitive claims he has made along that line have been thrown back in his face with improvements that he did not predict. That, and there is a lot of history of him raining on other peoples' parades, especially when they proved said statements incorrect.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Former player
Joined: 8/1/2004
Posts: 2687
Location: Seattle, WA
Comicalflop wrote:
Zurreco wrote:
Indeed. SM64 submissions all suffer from the same essential gameplay as their predecessors. Even though the same can be said of most (if not all) of the Mario submissions, at least other Mario game seems to have some leeway for author-dependent entertainment.
Shouldn't every single run of any game that has improvement movies made suffer from the same thing in the way you describe, not just super mario 64? Your mario bias here makes no sense; once a new movie of any game is submitted, any improvement movie is going to have the same gameplay as its predecessor. Also, SM64 has room for author dependent entertainment, despite what you say. The fact that we're all arguing about camera work is proof.
First of all, there is no Mario bias here. Otherwise, I wouldn't rate the SMW publications so high/wouldn't have said that the other games have more leeway/etc. You can say that I have an SM64 bias, sure, except I rated the 120star submission fairly high, whereas I put everything after the first 0star fairly low in entertainment.
Secondly, no, not all improvements use the same gameplay method as its predecessors. The 0star improvement was a great leap forward. However, now that we have brought it down to this level of non-completion, there really isn't anything in between to really truly discern one run from another. If I showed someone Viper7's 100% SMW run, then the next, and then the most recent one, people would see obvious improvements in entertainment and technical quality. If I showed someone the first 0star, then the next, and then the most recent one, most people would be hard pressed to see any real differences between them, save a hop here or there.
In other games where there are "frame wars" going on, there are still some portions of the submission that are handled differently than others. SMB3 runners will 1up-farm in different ways. Super Metroid runners will add little quirks to their attempts to shave time. It just strikes me as odd that people get all giddy about shaving so few frames off of a run where so little actually changes from one submission to another. People didn't have the same vocal response to slight frames being saved on Atlantis No Nazo or the few (shady) frames that Phil took off of SMB1 by ending input earlier in Mario's jump.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Former player
Joined: 8/1/2004
Posts: 2687
Location: Seattle, WA
Satyrium wrote:
These are so incredibly boring in my opinion.
Indeed. SM64 submissions all suffer from the same essential gameplay as their predecessors. Even though the same can be said of most (if not all) of the Mario submissions, at least other Mario game seems to have some leeway for author-dependent entertainment.
There is no real point in voting, though. It seems that I am one of a very few who doesn't appreciate such a tiny increase on what is essentially the same run that has been submitted ever since 0star was confirmed. What this submission accomplishes in shaving frames, it loses in being too similar to the old run, at least in my eyes.
Oh, and the camera angles were pretty bad in this one.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Former player
Joined: 8/1/2004
Posts: 2687
Location: Seattle, WA
No, that was a simplified argument to get rid of your bullshit 'only publish things above 5' concept.
The whole idea that everything we publish is above average negates the concept of an average in the first place. If we are to assume that every run published is above a 5 already, why even give the option to vote less than 5?
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Former player
Joined: 8/1/2004
Posts: 2687
Location: Seattle, WA
Bezman wrote:
Or, it just suggests that most TAS's are above average in quality.
If "most" are "above average," the average needs to be shifted. The whole idea of a relative scale is that 49.99% are above the average, 49.99% are below the average, and a few select items are right on the average.
mmbossman wrote:
The "average" rating system for published movies is probably not going to be equal to 5, because we accept higher quality and higher entertainment runs to be published. However, if all the submissions in the past two years were rated, I would find it very surprising to see any sort of large deviation away from an average score of 5. The system I described allows us to vote lowly for submissions that deserve it, and accept submissions that meet our higher standards. So if you look at the ratings of published movies only, then you're really missing half the picture (ie the ratings of the gruefood, which don't exist [yet]).
5 as average means that the average should be 5. Otherwise, the ratings system isn't relative. There is a reason that the ratings are applied to publications and not submissions: they are supposed to be indicative of site content, not theoretical site content. If we had intended to factor submissions and/or gruefood in to the ratings system, then they would have been rate-able from the get go.
By your logic, everyone at the Olympic Diving events should be getting perfect 10s in every dive because the other 7 billion people in the world are probably a lot worse at diving.
e: <Zurreco> think of the workbench as 'where we rate things above or below 5' and the ratings section as 'where we rate things 1-10 based on the fact that they were already published'
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Former player
Joined: 8/1/2004
Posts: 2687
Location: Seattle, WA
As I have stated before: if we can extrapolate that 5 is not held as an average value for both Entertainment and Optimization, the ratings system is inherently flawed and should be abandoned.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Former player
Joined: 8/1/2004
Posts: 2687
Location: Seattle, WA
Voted "No poll. But add "post <vote_type> post" buttons to where the poll was." However, I think there is an alternative to consider.
I am all for discourse and dialog over submissions. However, it seems like so many votes are going unsupported, while a load of other votes are simple 'this was good, voting yes.' It sometimes feels like I'm the only person striving to get some sort of discussion out there in some of the threads. It should be mandatory to include rationale behind all votes, even Meh votes. It should be mandatory that all submissions reach a minimum number of votes/posts/pages, so that it is assured that people are at least attempting to make the publication justified. It should also be mandatory that there is at least some sort of opposition stance being taken by someone at some point in the Workbench thread so that we know that there is some sort of qualification going on before publication. If a judge feels that there are votes that have incredibly terrible reasoning (ie "I remember playing this game as a kid and this brought back memories. I also remember it being pretty boring, but the fact that you beat it is impressive to me"), those votes can be nullified/reduced/removed. We need to support the idea of a community working together to make sure that publications are on par with the rest of the site.
That being said, force voting to require rationale behind it. Force submissions to have minimum requirements before being published. Allow judges to actively punish people who are ruining the idea behind the Workbench (that is, some sort of constructive feedback, be it positive or negative).
Furthermore, I'm still pretty mad that there are people out there whose ratings are not anywhere near 5 on average. 5 is noted as "Average" in the ratings scale, and yet there are lots of people who are giving 8s and up on some runs. I know it would require a lot of work, but could it be possible to make some ratings count for more impact based on their relative scale being closer to "5 is Average?" It would require people to be more subjective in a relative stance, while otherwise punishing people who rate 10/10 on their own submissions/across the whole site.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Former player
Joined: 8/1/2004
Posts: 2687
Location: Seattle, WA
1) If you didn't put it there, someone did.
2) It is possible that there is a file in there that, when ran, could do something detrimental. An easy way to find out is to copy the folder to a flash drive, put it on a library computer, and open/explore it on that computer.
3) It's a folder, silly.
4) Yes, and it rarely amounts to anything.
That being said, open it on someone else's computer to see what happens. If, after a week, their computer is ok, delete it. If not, email it to everyone you dislike.
