Emulator Coder, Published Author, Site Developer, Site Owner, Expert player
(3602)
Joined: 11/3/2004
Posts: 4739
Location: Tennessee
We've all agreed several times now that obsoletion is preferred where applicable.
However, that still leaves situations where it isn't applicable. Just as bad categories/goals which is what mmbossman is concerned with in the case of top gear & f-zero.
Emulator Coder, Published Author, Site Developer, Site Owner, Expert player
(3602)
Joined: 11/3/2004
Posts: 4739
Location: Tennessee
dunnius wrote:
I have been thinking about a good tag for those publications. How about an "aged" tag? It means that the movie is aged by time or by found improvements, so it needs to be redone, but it was still good at the time it was made. I suppose an icon for this could be a long, white beard.
Publications have dates, surely the user can decide that they are aged with a bit of help from mathmatics.
EDIT:
And for the record I am VERY much opposed to tagging these "bad" movies. The goal of this publication grue was to tuck them away from view of an average viewer, tagging them accomplished the opposite. Tagging puts them in the view of the audience then shouts at them "this is a bad TAS!". That's hardly image I want standing out on the site.
Emulator Coder, Published Author, Site Developer, Site Owner, Expert player
(3602)
Joined: 11/3/2004
Posts: 4739
Location: Tennessee
Whatever naming scheme we adopt, it will be the same for input files as well as video files (and probably screenshots as well). Thus, system ID is a good choice.
And, input file extension do NOT tell you the system.
GMV could be Genesis, 32X, or SegaCD
MCM could be PCE, PCECD, PC-FX, Lynx, NGP, or WSWAN
etc.
Emulator Coder, Published Author, Site Developer, Site Owner, Expert player
(3602)
Joined: 11/3/2004
Posts: 4739
Location: Tennessee
I can't think of any reason against prefixing them all with the system ID like that. And if we do, we should certainly do it for all movies unlike now.
As of right now they are only prefixed when they clash, which the author may not even be aware of. And NES is never specified, only other systems when they clash with NES. So all or nothing is preferred to avoid that kind of mess.
I don't see why categories should precede the ID, but I don't prefer one or the other so that is fine I guess. My thoughts were that within a given game, I'd prefer to see them listed chronologically.
Emulator Coder, Published Author, Site Developer, Site Owner, Expert player
(3602)
Joined: 11/3/2004
Posts: 4739
Location: Tennessee
Yes you think that. But the majority don't.
Also, this particular method of unpublishing as clearly been rejected, just look at the poll results. The thread is an even more overwhelming majority.
Emulator Coder, Published Author, Site Developer, Site Owner, Expert player
(3602)
Joined: 11/3/2004
Posts: 4739
Location: Tennessee
I think he means the subtitles that can be embedded directly in .fm2 files. But yeah, those get translated into soft subs by the publishers and thus can be on the streaming media as well.
Also the subtitle feature of .fm2 was far more of a success than I anticipated it would be when coding the feature. In the near future I hope to add it to the .fm2 clone movie formats as well (.mc2, .ymv, and .dsm).
I would like to see the idea of author commentary (whether in the form of subtitles or commentary videos) be a much common feature of the site.
Emulator Coder, Published Author, Site Developer, Site Owner, Expert player
(3602)
Joined: 11/3/2004
Posts: 4739
Location: Tennessee
I would prefer names have the movie ID in them. And if not the movie ID, then a date. And if not a date, then I don't like this idea at all.
My proposal:
http://tasvideos.org/1279M.html
becomes:
doubledragon2-1279-adelikat.fm2
if a specific category is involved (such as if there was both a 1 player & 2 player versions of this game) then the category would be mentioned too:
doubledragon2-1279-2player-adelikat.fm2
I think this offers the best solution for finding a movie in a long list of movies. You find the game, then you can easily see which movie is the most recent and what categories might be available.
It also means that the user could easily determine the url of the publication and go there.
A date instead of movie ID accomplishes the same goal except with the drawback of not knowing the movie URL.
Emulator Coder, Published Author, Site Developer, Site Owner, Expert player
(3602)
Joined: 11/3/2004
Posts: 4739
Location: Tennessee
What I got from the thread is that there is more people not wanting runs removed than those wanting to remove 2 specific movies. And even some that favor getting rid of those 2 movies favor not unpublishing movies even more than they favor removal. Am I wrong on this? *5 pages of arguing ensues*
Emulator Coder, Published Author, Site Developer, Site Owner, Expert player
(3602)
Joined: 11/3/2004
Posts: 4739
Location: Tennessee
Wow this topic went all over the place. The only thing dissappointing is that I think by page 2 or 3 people lost track of the concept this idea was supposed to represent. Essentially the concept of "unpublishing" in the past was discussed in one of two forms:
1) Deleting the publication from existence
2) Reverting it back to a submission status (and probably rejecting it)
This grue idea was simply a 3rd less drastic option:
3) Set a publication to obsoleted.
This was intended to be a compromise. The main advantage being that the movie is still a publication on TASVideos.
It wasn't my intent that this be used in any specific circumstance or even at all. It also seems some people got very upset by this idea and misinterpreted its intent. This was simply an idea. One that I thought people might find less objectionable that previous unpublication ideas. Also, since the idea involves a "dummy" publication it was have to be a submission first. Thus it seemed only natural to propose the idea in submission for, and thus let the people decide just as they would any other submission. I'm sorry that doing so offended some people.
I feel the majority of posts here were not a rejection of this idea but a rejection of the general concept of unpublication. While I'm disappointed the idea didn't get much discussion, I do feel that a more important point was made clear.
Historically the lack of unpublication was largely a mechanics issue, as there was no particular site feature for such. I think this thread makes it clear that the general audience (& staff) want it to be an act of policy to not unpublish (or even set as obsoleted) existing TASVideos publications.
On that note, this submission & thread has served a point and reached a consensus. Therefore I am judging this "submission" as rejected by the people.
I will also try to put into the rules somewhere a blurb that makes unpublication an official policy.
Emulator Coder, Published Author, Site Developer, Site Owner, Expert player
(3602)
Joined: 11/3/2004
Posts: 4739
Location: Tennessee
The bubble bobble commentary was fun and I enjoyed the result. So I intend to do commentaries on future publications and possibly past publications of mine. I also have ideas on how to make them more informative (as well as entertaining).
Also, I would definitely prefer commentaries from an author over commentaries from just anybody.
Emulator Coder, Published Author, Site Developer, Site Owner, Expert player
(3602)
Joined: 11/3/2004
Posts: 4739
Location: Tennessee
I decided to begin TASing this gem of a game.
I have the first 2 worlds done.
Streaming video link
The game features some whacky concepts and nice graphics. In addition, the game has a variety of movement options that give it a lot of strategy and variety for TASing. In particular it features running, a dashing jump, floating, and a variety of attacks.
There are a number of significant glitches possible in this game, which are shown in this WIP.
1) The "boring through floors" glitch. This where Tempo jumps in the air and begins pressing L,R on alternate frames while in his initial jump animation. This causes him to fall through the floor! This is used to make some major shortcuts.
2) When doing a dashing jump, Tempo may hit his head no the ceiling. If this happens, pressing L,R on alternating frames causes him to maintain his running speed while falling back down. This is used many times to save frames.
3) Zipping up shafts. If you do a dash jump and flick a music note while entering a shaft, Tempo zips up it.
Emulator Coder, Published Author, Site Developer, Site Owner, Expert player
(3602)
Joined: 11/3/2004
Posts: 4739
Location: Tennessee
I guess this thread is a thread about the general concept unpublication whether I want it to be or not. In that case I'll throw in an argument.
I've always been not in favor of unpublication, but I have encountered arguments for it over the years, for instance:
I judge a mediocre submission as rejected for poor game choice. Soon after I submit a movie of a far worse game choice which gets accepted and published. What was the difference? My movie was an improvement to another movie that was a bad game choice.
I've been confronted with this with a more or less "How is that fair?" kind of argument. Or a "why should that movie get a free pass that way?"
I've never been able to successfully counter such arguments.
This submission was an idea I had that could possibly be a compromise between those with this sentiment and those (like me) who don't want to see movies just get deleted from the publication system.
Emulator Coder, Published Author, Site Developer, Site Owner, Expert player
(3602)
Joined: 11/3/2004
Posts: 4739
Location: Tennessee
Nach wrote:
Warp wrote:
Someone already suggested doing the same as with the submissions which were saved from the grue to the re-evaluated, but in this case it would be the reverse. That doesn't sound like a completely bad idea to me.
Yes, but how do we select the movies which need to be reevaulated it?
Low scores in ratings? Just a judge's say so?
Do we need to have this conversation here? If we have a system for "unpublication" that the people can agree to, then we can easily hammer out the details of how a movie meets criteria. Such a system is rather obvious anyway: A combo of age, ratings, and discussion.
Emulator Coder, Published Author, Site Developer, Site Owner, Expert player
(3602)
Joined: 11/3/2004
Posts: 4739
Location: Tennessee
Xkeeper wrote:
I don't see how it's "embarassing", given that at the time most of these movies were pretty comparable to what you'd see back then
why not just add a note in the video description that the movie is fairly outdated? better than having a ghost publication obsoleting 27 different movies.
Actually, there is only about 3-5 movies that would even be viable enough to pass the any kind of judging process. And in all these cases, those movies were questionable even then.
Such as:
Oot - it was just a test run, but a huge outcry from certain audience members caused the publication of this test run. Even back then it was improvable by about 15 minutes.
Combatribes - published without passing the audience test. Thus a lot of people might like to see this at least "rejudged"
BOB - was unoptimized and had poor viewer response. By judging standards of then, it should have not passed, but it was published for whatever reason.
Top Gear/F-Zero - single level demo's that never fit entirely the rules of the site then or now.
Note: I'm not saying I personally want any of these unpublished. I'm merely suggesting which ones I think the audience might be in favor of, based on past discussions.
Ideally, we would make good judging decisions from now on, and there would be no knew ones to add to the list (Ideally of course)
Emulator Coder, Published Author, Site Developer, Site Owner, Expert player
(3602)
Joined: 11/3/2004
Posts: 4739
Location: Tennessee
When we took the site over, I made a TODO list. The naming convention was an item on this list. However, we have limited time and I consider it low priority. We've made huge improvements on the site, and fixed critical issues. And there are some more improvements on the way.
This issue will happen, trust me, I've wanted it to for a long time.
The only reason it hasn't happened yet is that 20 people have chimed in on 20 opinions as to how to name them. Nobody (including me, nach, truncated, and mmbossman) agrees on the specifics. And it isn't trivial to just go around renaming them. We need to get it right and do this change 1 time.
Emulator Coder, Published Author, Site Developer, Site Owner, Expert player
(3602)
Joined: 11/3/2004
Posts: 4739
Location: Tennessee
Nicos wrote:
we shouln't erase our own history :p
Which is precisely what spawned my idea of this grue. This gets rid of the run without removing for the site. And even better, should an improvement come along, it be changed so the improvement is the one doing the obsoletion. This allows business as usual, but in the meantime at least we aren't featuring something with a bad site image.
Emulator Coder, Published Author, Site Developer, Site Owner, Expert player
(3602)
Joined: 11/3/2004
Posts: 4739
Location: Tennessee
nicos wrote:
as i said, instead of unpublishing runs, we should focus on improving them
I agree 100%
However, people aren't. So what am I supposed to do as an admin? Just live with runs that hurt the site's image until someone gets around to doing it?
I would like a way to handle the situation.
Emulator Coder, Published Author, Site Developer, Site Owner, Expert player
(3602)
Joined: 11/3/2004
Posts: 4739
Location: Tennessee
Mukki wrote:
I don't see any compelling reason to clutter the publication pages with grue publications.
This is a big misunderstanding. There would only be ONE grue publication, and it would obsolete various movies (theoretically). Also, as you can see from the submission itself the platform classification would be "Grue" thus it would not show up in any move listings.
Emulator Coder, Published Author, Site Developer, Site Owner, Expert player
(3602)
Joined: 11/3/2004
Posts: 4739
Location: Tennessee
andymac wrote:
Eh, this isn't so much a thread to vote to obsolete specific publications. It is a thread to vote for this specific method of handling publication obsoletions.
Personally, I had this misconception because I thought the debate was not over whether or not unpublication should be implemented. Perhaps we should have separate, clearly labelled polls regarding whether unpublication should be implemented, and if it does become implemented, what methods should be used to handle it.
That was unpublication, which I interpreted as removing the publication from the site. This takes another route, obsoletion.
Emulator Coder, Published Author, Site Developer, Site Owner, Expert player
(3602)
Joined: 11/3/2004
Posts: 4739
Location: Tennessee
sgrunt wrote:
This run should be rejected immediately for using a bad dump.
In all seriousness, is there any reason we need a submission/publication/etc. of this nature in order to carry this out? It's a good idea to be able to mark publications as obsolete, but this approach is unnecessarily hackish. I'd adding an option into the code to just unilaterally mark movies obsolete.
This method offers a few advantages.
#1 it keeps the history chain in tact
#2 obsoletion is currently coded as an "obsoleted by" system. It needs to be fed something, so this serves as an easy place holder
#3 the publication page would serve as a place to see all movies obsoleted in this manner
#4 should a movie be obsoleted this way then later improved, it can easily be changed so that the new movie obsoletes it instead.
Emulator Coder, Published Author, Site Developer, Site Owner, Expert player
(3602)
Joined: 11/3/2004
Posts: 4739
Location: Tennessee
Eh, this isn't so much a thread to vote to obsolete specific publications. It is a thread to vote for this specific method of handling publication obsoletions.
