This topic is for the purpose of discussing #1414: Goldude's NES Where's Waldo? in 02:27.47

What's with the rerecord count? You didn't use any rerecords at all?

Nope. No rerecords. I started from scratch everytime.

Why?

Because everytime I gave up I deleted the movie.

Ugh. No vote for one million reasons: This is not a "look what I did without rerecords!" site. No. Each level was done pretty poorly, including the city. No. The game is really terrible. No. This could have seemingly been ended at a better time. No. That being said: No.

Sorry, this site requires you to use brains. Better luck next time.

Goldude, the rules of the site encourage you to use rerecording tools in order to make the movie as close to perfection as possible. Did you use any slowdown or frame advance, or were you just playing the run as a console speedrunner would?

This could have taken you 30 minutes instead of 30 days if you were patient enough (what irony) to use rerecords. It would also have saved a couple of seconds as well. But that won't help anyway, since Where's Waldo sucks and will never be accepted here just for that reason.

Well, just read the FAQ next time then. Especially the Guidelines.

I suggest that you read the FAQs here and here if you haven't already.

Frame by frame. Plus do NOT be harsh to me. It's my first time submitting.

Maybe if you understood the main purpose of the site and picked a game that people wouldn't fall asleep watching we wouldn't be.

Goldude, in the future, I suggest you also use rerecords - you'll save yourself a lot of time and frustration. I can't imagine having the patience to finish a run if holding the wrong buttons when frame advancing meant I had to start all over. You've obvoiusly got patience! Once you are used to rerecords, you might want to try a longer game that is a bit more involved. There's been one other submission of Where's Waldo, and even when fully optimized, it's not a very fun game to watch. Everyone else: Quit being jackasses. There's a difference between pointing out a better way to do something and ridicule.

At least he still managed to beat the previous run (which did use re-records) by 2 seconds ... But this game doesn't have much potential for runs, since most of it is either Waldo walking between levels (no action) or the player finding him instantly (too obvious) ... from what I remember anyway, since I only watched the old one (I'm not at home right now).

Everyone else: Quit being jackasses. There's a difference between pointing out a better way to do something and ridicule.

I'd go as far to say that everyone aside from AnotherGamer was stern but just, rather than being jackasses. Generalizations are what make the internet a sad place, man.

Zurreco, if it doesn't apply to you, then don't take offense. Lisa: Dad, you can't judge a place before you've been there! Bart: Yeah, that's what people in Russia do!

Zurreco, if it doesn't apply to you, then don't take offense.

Ah, but when you say "everyone else," that means "everyone except the person that I just spoke to." I would fit in to that category, so it does apply to me (though incorrectly). Agree?

I agree entirely with JXQ. Being dickish doesn't do anyone any good. Most people fail their first attempt, Goldude, don't let it discourage you from making future runs. Hopefully you will :)

Zurreco, I meant it to apply to you as well, mostly for "Ugh. No, for a million reasons". But you know better than I how you meant your post to come across, so if I just misinterpreted your intentions, then there's no need to take offense.

Eh. That was aimed more at the game than the run, though the run was pretty bad. Also, who on Earth would take offense at something from the internet? Seriously...

JXQ is a big doody-head and also has a dumb name

:'(