Posts for moozooh

1 2
29 30 31
229 230
Posted: 11/29/2011 9:18 PM
Quote
moozooh
Experienced Forum User, Senior Moderator
Joined: 8/4/2005
Posts: 5772
Location: Away
YoungJ1997lol wrote:
yes, child.
YoungJ1997lol wrote:
sorry, rookie.
If "young" and "1997" in your name are any indication of your age, I'm not sure where that condescending tone is coming from. :P
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Posted: 11/28/2011 7:22 PM
Quote
moozooh
Experienced Forum User, Senior Moderator
Joined: 8/4/2005
Posts: 5772
Location: Away
fsvgm777 wrote:
So close to a 1CC... By the way, I use some bombs, especially during later stages.
You should definitely bomb more. MoF gives you plenty of power items, quite enough to bomb through everything that is hard.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Posted: 11/28/2011 6:37 AM
Post subject: Mushihimesama Futari
Quote
moozooh
Experienced Forum User, Senior Moderator
Joined: 8/4/2005
Posts: 5772
Location: Away
Some Mushihimesama Futari Black Label God mode hilarity: Link to video
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Posted: 11/26/2011 11:02 PM
(Edited: 11/26/2011 11:11 PM)
Quote
moozooh
Experienced Forum User, Senior Moderator
Joined: 8/4/2005
Posts: 5772
Location: Away
agwawaf, I believe you're taking the idea of rating very seriously—more seriously than it deserves and more seriously than it makes sense. Everybody has a different idea how and why to rate movies, how to appraise technical quality, and so on. For instance, I use it as a personal catalog of movies I have watched, to be able to tell at a brief glance which movies are my favorite, which ones I believe to be improvable, and which ones I find boring. And yes, I also change ratings over time (retroactively) to a lower value when an improvement comes around, if I believe it made the older movie look worse in some way—this is often the case with optimization-heavy games like Super Metroid. I don't think anybody has got a personal grudge against you so as to purposefully downvote your movies. Again, don't take this too seriously. And, what's most important, always be above petty vengeance.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Posted: 11/26/2011 9:42 PM
Quote
moozooh
Experienced Forum User, Senior Moderator
Joined: 8/4/2005
Posts: 5772
Location: Away
ais523 wrote:
In order to create a good "low-glitch" category for the game, I'd suggest banning zips, but also sprite ejections that eject Sonic out a different side of the sprite from which he entered (unless the sprite is destroyed in the process).
Yes! This is exactly what I had in mind with my proposal of respecting solidity.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Posted: 11/26/2011 10:12 AM
Quote
moozooh
Experienced Forum User, Senior Moderator
Joined: 8/4/2005
Posts: 5772
Location: Away
The point isn't that the particular glitch is bad or anything, it's that the rest of the run sets a certain flow that is, in my and other people's opinion, badly interrupted by such usage. The run is coherent with the goal choice but incoherent stylistically; had such major ejection glitches happened more often and spread evenly in the run, it would be more coherent (but wouldn't be low-glitch anymore, imo).
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Posted: 11/24/2011 10:21 PM
Quote
moozooh
Experienced Forum User, Senior Moderator
Joined: 8/4/2005
Posts: 5772
Location: Away
Unfortunately it doesn't work as intended here: speed changing controls don't change anything. I'm on Opera 10.60 beta, got the same result on Chrome at work. I'm wondering what exactly is wrong.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Posted: 11/24/2011 1:02 PM
Quote
moozooh
Experienced Forum User, Senior Moderator
Joined: 8/4/2005
Posts: 5772
Location: Away
Can we please not degrade the discussion into sophistry? Arguing what was or wasn't intended is pointless. We should be arguing what is or isn't a suitable goal or a suitable way to conform to that goal.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Posted: 11/24/2011 9:44 AM
Quote
moozooh
Experienced Forum User, Senior Moderator
Joined: 8/4/2005
Posts: 5772
Location: Away
Hmm, the last two levels were head scratchers alright. They looked... out of place, even though goals were not violated. I am unsure what to vote, because the run was definitely cool, and it set up a very good branch as well, but these glitches are significant enough to break two stages, and they still leave the category open for more abuse in the future if more applications are found, thereby defeating the purpose somewhat. Maybe we should discuss this is greater detail. So far I see two more or less feasible solutions: 1) respect this goal choice and base the branch around it; 2) reformulate the goal choice so that glitching similar to SBZ2/3 is forbidden, but the rest of the gameplay stays. For #2, I propose a goal formulated as "respecting solidity": if a terrain or an object are solid, don't go through. As far as I remember, although spikes deal damage, they aren't solid—is that correct?
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Posted: 11/23/2011 10:35 PM
Quote
moozooh
Experienced Forum User, Senior Moderator
Joined: 8/4/2005
Posts: 5772
Location: Away
I wholeheartedly support the goal choice; will watch the run tomorrow, but I'm sure there's nothing in it that'll prevent me from liking it. Please consider do the same for other Sonic titles (any of them will do).
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Posted: 11/23/2011 2:13 PM
Quote
moozooh
Experienced Forum User, Senior Moderator
Joined: 8/4/2005
Posts: 5772
Location: Away
I'll try rephrasing the footnote. Btw, as pointless and overly complex as it is in the normal game, 100% map coverage may actually become an interesting goal if one were to start the game with all items. It would avoid item acquisition fanfares and would showcase rooms one doesn't normally visit in a speedrun (or at all).
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Posted: 11/22/2011 2:04 PM
Quote
moozooh
Experienced Forum User, Senior Moderator
Joined: 8/4/2005
Posts: 5772
Location: Away
AnS wrote:
Remember, first TASes of Contra were 11:30+, and they were considered entertaining.
When I was a little kid, I considered playing TMNT and Felix the Cat entertaining; I don't anymore. What I want to say is, I'm not against your ideas per se, but I do think the solutions you've proposed either overcomplicate things (#1 and #2 are disconnected from the general viewing experience, as they require the viewer to monitor RAM to verify adherence) or have fuzzy goals (#3, "clear connection" is hard to define, as there is always some kind of critique that emerges in any case). #4, albeit defined a posteriori, is "don't actively kill, but don't prevent collateral damage either", and it is the only goal that is both unambiguous and easy to monitor. It has no internal conflict, but it does have an external conflict with your desired definition of pacifism and your desired increase in the amount of playarounds as opposed to pure speedruns. I'm not critiquing the notion; in fact I support it, but I'm just not sure it makes much sense with a game as simplistic and straightforward as Contra. Many of the more complex games actually do have playarounds and non-trivial goal TASes published; maybe you should rather open up a thread asking people for interesting playaround goals/ideas for games with(out) published speedruns? Or, well, maybe do some yourself—you're a proficient TASer after all.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Posted: 11/22/2011 11:05 AM
Quote
moozooh
Experienced Forum User, Senior Moderator
Joined: 8/4/2005
Posts: 5772
Location: Away
Yeah, it's roughly twice as fast as a glitched run starting from power-on.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Posted: 11/21/2011 9:14 PM
Quote
moozooh
Experienced Forum User, Senior Moderator
Joined: 8/4/2005
Posts: 5772
Location: Away
Should we also care about enemies who jump into bottomless pits in stage 1? How about those who get scrolled offscreen in stage 3? We know getting scrolled means certain death in that stage. What about item carriers and stuff like spiky walls in stage 6—should we save those? What if saving enemies in stages 2 and 4 from being caught in the explosions cost several seconds per screen, increasing total time of the TAS by minutes? What if we need to "sacrifice" an enemy or two so that more could survive? That's a completely plausible scenario if you really want to push it that far with the pacifism idea. I think it's not as important to truly live up to some fun idealistic concept such as being pacifist in a shooter, as it is important to make a movie that is fun to produce and, most certainly, fun to watch. It may be closer to the any% that way, but if it means I won't have to wait for meddling enemies to escape with their lives every time, that's totally fine by me.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Posted: 11/21/2011 3:33 PM
Quote
moozooh
Experienced Forum User, Senior Moderator
Joined: 8/4/2005
Posts: 5772
Location: Away
I think the discord happens because you define pacifist as preventing enemy deaths, if possible, while the runs have so far aimed for not actively killing enemies. The latter is easy to conform to, the former... well, not so. It's ambiguous and somewhat pointless, because in this case the best way to prevent the deaths of the entire island's worth of enemies is to game over at the last boss.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Posted: 11/21/2011 8:00 AM
Quote
moozooh
Experienced Forum User, Senior Moderator
Joined: 8/4/2005
Posts: 5772
Location: Away
Kyrsimys wrote:
So remind me again why Contra runs use the J version?
Better graphics, shorter intro, otherwise identical.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Posted: 11/20/2011 2:12 PM
Quote
moozooh
Experienced Forum User, Senior Moderator
Joined: 8/4/2005
Posts: 5772
Location: Away
Those soldiers die anyway when the island explodes. :P
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Posted: 11/19/2011 10:37 AM
Quote
moozooh
Experienced Forum User, Senior Moderator
Joined: 8/4/2005
Posts: 5772
Location: Away
I see no problem with an easter egg like that. As long as it's documented in the movie description, I don't think anybody would have a problem with it.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Posted: 11/19/2011 9:03 AM
Quote
moozooh
Experienced Forum User, Senior Moderator
Joined: 8/4/2005
Posts: 5772
Location: Away
I seem to remember watching such a run, but can't find it anywhere?.. Odd, must be my memory playing tricks on me. Edit: Nope, here it is, albeit an any% and not a 100%. Found it in my smv folder. I think I'll add the link to the published glitched run's description.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Posted: 11/15/2011 1:40 PM
Quote
moozooh
Experienced Forum User, Senior Moderator
Joined: 8/4/2005
Posts: 5772
Location: Away
Warp wrote:
I'm positively surprised that so far nobody has posted the old tired "it's fake!" and "it's cheating!" posts.
I'd posted a comment there, saying "it's fake! it's cheating! (For Warp.)"... it got deleted before anybody here could notice. One mystery less!
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Posted: 11/13/2011 9:42 PM
Quote
moozooh
Experienced Forum User, Senior Moderator
Joined: 8/4/2005
Posts: 5772
Location: Away
Phallosvogel wrote:
So I guess it should be added to the publication, shouldn't it?
It shouldn't, because you can't make a non-console-verified Hourglass movie: the game isn't emulated.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Posted: 11/13/2011 9:36 PM
Quote
moozooh
Experienced Forum User, Senior Moderator
Joined: 8/4/2005
Posts: 5772
Location: Away
All Windows movies are "console-verified" by default, as they require the original executables and assets running in their native environment.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Posted: 11/12/2011 9:54 PM
Quote
moozooh
Experienced Forum User, Senior Moderator
Joined: 8/4/2005
Posts: 5772
Location: Away
Since when is gocha a female?
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Posted: 11/12/2011 9:22 PM
Quote
moozooh
Experienced Forum User, Senior Moderator
Joined: 8/4/2005
Posts: 5772
Location: Away
Actually CRTs are awesome for low resolution, because instead of ugly blur (or having the fullscreen image reduced to a small patch in the center, if you choose 1:1 mapping) you get sharp graphics with unintrusive scanlines. Unfortunately, gaming is the only thing CRTs are good for nowadays. :\
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Posted: 11/11/2011 5:06 PM
Post subject: Re: Looking to upgrade my GPU.
Quote
moozooh
Experienced Forum User, Senior Moderator
Joined: 8/4/2005
Posts: 5772
Location: Away
VanillaCoke wrote:
I know there are people out there who always want "the best", and that's why the 580/6990 are out there. But I'm not rich (or crazy) enough to spend $400~600 for something that'll be obsolete in 8-10 years. For that kind of money, I'd want it to last that long and I know it wouldn't xD.
8–10? Try 3–4 if you want to be realistic. I'm currently using a factory-overclocked GTX 460 (the 1 GB model) and a 1600x900 monitor; so far the 460 has been quite sufficient for games I've played—which, admittedly, aren't numerous. If I looked for a new card now, I would have happily settled on 560 Ti; I don't use multisampling, it's too inefficient. I've found that the best time to buy any hardware is after a significant price drop, or at least at some point where the price doesn't considerably fluctuate from month to month. New lineups usually trigger that kind of price drops, so Atma's suggestion is reasonable. Maybe, however unlikely, there will even be something new that performs better than 6870 at the same market price. Also make sure to keep an eye on comprehensive tests that calculate per-$ efficiency; obviously the formulas will be different for every site, but generally they won't contradict each other. I use iXBT.com for the reference, but it's in Russian. The last table on the page is sorted by per-$ efficiency, with the rightmost column being the average price, and the one in front of it the performance index (all data from October '11).
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
1 2
29 30 31
229 230