The cartridge is oversized. The boxart boasts "6 MEGA." Might and Magic II is a huge game. But like many western RPGs, the ratio of side quests to main quests is high. In this TAS a thief and a ninja finish quickly and bloodlessly with the help of a clear plan, luck manipulation and glitches.
Fastest time
Manipulator
Glitcher
Pacifist; no damage
Gens_9.5c
There must be no SRAM or a zero-byte SRAM present.
Save-load during playback may cause desync.
The script has some cheeseball humor here and there which you may enjoy if you can read fast enough.
Also, keep in mind this is a port of an Apple II game made at about the same time as FF1.
Forbidden teleport glitch
Enter an area where the teleport spell is forbidden. Rest to clear the forbidden flag. Now teleport can be used as normal. This saves walking and skips battles that would otherwise have to be manipulated away.
Weird characters glitch
Choose View Char then press A+C at View which? to reveal a nameless character with invalid stats. You can take his weapons and money. It saves a minute or so of doing the Pegasus quest to get money.
It's optimal to just hold ↑ or ↓ to continuously move the party or the cursor.
Sometimes it's faster to walk backwards or even take a longer route to reduce screen drawing time. The less stuff in the viewfield, the faster the movement.
Walk on Water and the elemental transmutation spells are accessed by manipulating temple blessings instead of a cleric. This has the added benefit of activating Wizard Eye, which shows a small overhead map.
Fly and Teleport spells are accessed via Witch's Broom and Teleport Orb items instead of a sorcerer.
Whenever TP would save time, TP was used. Whenever TP wouldn't save time, TP wasn't used.
There are portals between the castles in their basements. These are faster by a small margin than breaking in through the front gates.
You need someone with the Crusader skill to accept the "rescue Sherman" quest. For this I use: Sherman.
The Mountaineer skill x2 is needed to pass the mountains in A1.
It's only necessary to make one character a "chosen one," so only one juror quest is done. The ninja quest (kill Dawn) can be done on the way to get the orb, so I bring Nakazawa, who is rescued with Sherman. He shirks his job though.
Edit: Fixed the php errors and uglified the text. I can't direct link an image with link text and without inlining.
NesVideoAgent: Hi! I am a robot. I took a few screenshots
of this movie and placed them here.
I'm not sure I got the right ROM though. (I tried Might and Magic - Gates to Another World (UE) (REV01) [!].gen, which was the closest match to what you wrote.) Well, here goes! Feel free to clean up the list.
Dammit: Sorry, NesVideoAgent, you only made it halfway through. Also, I suggest you ignore the file extensions on ROM names. They only make you nervous.
mmbossman: I admire the technical achievement demonstrated in this run, but I believe it makes a very poor TAS to watch. Nearly a third of the action is cursor movement, and I don't think that the rest of the run would be entertaining for a viewer who is not familiar with the game, even with subtitles present. Therefore, I am rejecting this submission.
adelikat: Unrejecting and accepting for publication to the Vault
If you believe that we should cater to everyone, and publish any movie that makes at least one person happy, then we seem to have a difference in ideals, and I can accept that. But this site is different because it provides both high quality and entertaining movies, with very few instances of one being present without the other. If we accept every run that is well done from a precision standpoint, we'd get bitched at for being too lenient and decreasing the entertainment value of the site. If we reject a run that a few people enjoyed because of nostalgia, we get bitched at for not accepting enough. As the saying goes, "You can make some people happy all the time...."
Hardly "one person". Full Moon Mario had more than 1 yes vote, but I'm glad to see it was (cancelled/rejected).
This run (and many, many others) were 10-yes 2-no, usually with the 2 being adelikat, you, or somebody else. That is usually a good audience.
But this site is different because it provides both high quality and entertaining movies, with very few instances of one being present without the other.
Entertainment is very much subjective. Just because it was not entertaining for you does not mean it was entertainment for other people, which I think is part of the judging problem here.
As an aside, I did, in fact, enjoy the Deja Vu/Uninvited movies. I was just using them as a comparison.
Joined: 11/18/2006
Posts: 2426
Location: Back where I belong
Xkeeper wrote:
Entertainment is very much subjective. Just because it was not entertaining for you does not mean it was entertainment for other people, which I think is part of the judging problem here.
I'll simply point you to this thread, as it seems like it will be the exact same conversation.
Also, please note who did the rejecting in that instance.
EDIT: Selected sample of discussion:
mmbossman wrote:
Also, I don't find any conflicting messages in alden's post. Nothing is prohibiting anyone from making a movie for a less than popular game, but the quality of the site at large is affected by the movies that are published. I'm glad whenever someone makes a run for a game that hasn't been done before, because chances are that someone somewhere will find it enjoyable for some reason for another. If you take this run for example, a good amount of people found it enjoyable, but it wasn't published. Did that change your enjoyment of it at all? If someone wants to see it, the .vbm still exists, and is even linked to in the prequel's movie text. Just because publication acts like a filter to sort through the cream of the crop doesn't mean that the gruefood entries are all bad (see alden's sig, for example). It just means that the specific movie may not be entertaining enough to a large enough audience to warrant publication. The same thing goes for King's Quest. Many people enjoyed it because of nostalgia, but to someone who hadn't played it, it was 30 minutes of text boxes. Hope my point gets across
To clarify this to adelikat, since he didn't seem to get what I was saying on IRC at all. And since it is highly relevant to the site, I'll post it here.
First of all, the point is not that you shouldn't accept or publish the improvements to the storybook runs. The points is that not unpublishing is the site's general policy that was made for reasons close/related to political correctness and preservation of content. However, due to the very fact that we faithfully abide by this policy, we have lots of runs considered boring (as mmbossman eloquently put it) constantly rehashed, and many new runs for new games, that are similarly-or-less boring to an audience, not published because the site has high entertainment standards and shit. You see the two policies conflicting with each other?
I won't touch the fact that 10:2 yes vote ratio is usually considered good response from the viewers. The reason adelikat gets the lash more often than Truncated is that the latter does seem to put more attention to audience reception even when he doesn't personally consider a game particularly good for TASing. I know there are numerous counterexamples to that, but seriously, personal opinion is one thing and audience's opinion is another.
Adelikat, your earlier argument I quoted on the previous page was so amazingly awful (I mean it) I didn't even know what constructive to say about it. You're basically bashing this game for the same thing present in runs of the RPG and storybook games, including those you like; for instance, DW series. Yet you were willing to accept a glitched DW3 run (10:1 yes ratio, where you were one of the yes-voters) alongside the normal run because it was "substantially different", and I'm not even going to try convincing you that two different games (NES M&M and Genesis M&M) are more different in this case than two runs of the same game. It just won't work. The fact that the author made subtitles to ease the understanding of what's going on in the run (something you supposedly care about, judging from your own words) just adds to the absurd of the situation.
The first step is not getting pissed at any criticism (not taking it personally in the first place), and instead trying to improve the situation. Nothing is perfect, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't improve at each opportunity. Clinging to all kinds of standards which have been made historically (and which may or may have not been relevant to the site's current state), for one, is not a good way to improve. Bisqwit knows it as well, but he's lenient/indecisive/unmotivated (and very polictically correct in addition to that), so the things change much slower than they perhaps should.
Now on to mmbossman's words.
mmbossman wrote:
I do try to think about the audience in general, and think of whether they will be entertained. If a run is full of action, and has some smaller errors, it will likely be accepted. If a run is mediocre on action, but is impeccably done, it will also likely be accepted. But this run, and runs like it, are boring (I also agree that the three storybook TASes you mention are boring, but take that up with whoever originally accepted them in 2004 and 2005, not me. We don't unpublish movies here, so that's a topic for a different thread, or a different PM).
This is an example of a certain past event interfering with the present, among other things.
It's obvious that any and all movies won't be received the same way by any given audience. As such, the main audience you as a judge should pay the most attention to is the one that needs this movie. Because those who doesn't need it don't have to watch it either. Think of it as a restaurant menu: there are always things you will never eat, but someone else eats that every day. The restaurant's goal is to serve their customers, so they will put that dish on the menu because there is a demand for it.
If you aren't a part of the relevant audience that would like this movie, gathering their response is the first thing you should do (as you state you do in general). However, what exactly do you need to believe that audience likes a movie beside that exact audience telling you they like a movie (which was what happened here, in particular)? This is something I don't understand and would like to have a clarification for.
mmbossman wrote:
If we accept every run that is well done from a precision standpoint, we'd get bitched at for being too lenient and decreasing the entertainment value of the site.
I do understand I haven't been registered at the site for very long, but could you please point me to the last such argument posed here?
Edit: finished the sentence I accidentally hadn't finished.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Joined: 4/8/2005
Posts: 1573
Location: Gone for a year, just for varietyyyyyyyyy!!
Xkeeper wrote:
I'm seriously beginning to question if having adelikat and mmbossman as judges is the right choice.
You are kidding, right?
I think they are doing really good job! Some rules might be worth rewriting every now and then, but there's nothing wrong with the judges. If there was a poll, I would definitely vote these exact persons for judges.
Just to make sure no-one accuses me of the wrong things (arguments like this tend to lump the opinions of everyone on one side of the fence together), I personally don't consider adelikat and mmbossman bad judges, not at all. I would just like to emphasize that any site's success is determined by its audience, not its content. So it's pleasing the audience that should be the primary objective. Correct me if I'm wrong.
As such, depriving them of the quality content despite their vocal support without a strong reason is not a good thing, no matter if you're a judge, a jury, an executor, or whoever.
Dammit wrote:
In any case, I'm unlikely to do any more of these envelope-pushing TASes.
Personally, if I were a judge, I'd rather be ashamed the situation has come to this. :|
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Look, xkeeper and moozooh(!), I'm sorry, but this game is incredibly boring to watch.
That's just how it is.
After watching this movie I'm really incredibly surprised that anybody voted yes.
I mean, when mmbossman says "1/3rd of the action is cursor movement.", that is understating the boringness of the game.
There is literally no action in the game whatsoever. The music stinks, the graphics stink and there is no point during the gameplay that less than a third of the screenspace is taken up by boring status dialogs.
Might and Magic for the NES barely squeaked by, on the basis of being incredibly surprising. But if you look at the entertainment ratings of the thing, it should not have been accepted.
I mean, I think as rules of thumb go "if the submission text is more entertaining than the movie itself, it should not be published" is a good one. An exception was made for the NES might and magic, and the result was regretable. I don't think this case is any more compelling than that one. Indeed, this case is less compelling, because we already have a movie just like this one.
I'm sorry, but this game simply is not fun to watch, and there is nothing to be done to correct that.
Don't get me wrong, I understand that this run is technically impressive. But this is definitely a case where the theory is much more stimulating than the fact.
How fleeting are all human passions compared with the massive continuity of ducks.
Joined: 11/18/2006
Posts: 2426
Location: Back where I belong
Wall of Text/ tl;dr: I support my decision.
moozooh wrote:
First of all, the point is not that you shouldn't accept or publish the improvements to the storybook runs. The points is that not unpublishing is the site's general policy that was made for reasons close/related to political correctness and preservation of content. However, due to the very fact that we faithfully abide by this policy, we have lots of runs considered boring (as mmbossman eloquently put it) constantly rehashed, and many new runs for new games, that are similarly-or-less boring to an audience, not published because the site has high entertainment standards and shit. You see the two policies conflicting with each other?
I do not see two conflicting policies, rather I see the past and current status of the site conflicting. This site started out accepting anything that was technically impressive, no matter how boring it was to watch, because TASing as an art was "new and exciting". Bubble Bobble, one track Top Gear, B.O.B.; they are all uninteresting to watch, yet they were all published because they showed off a technically impressive feat for the time. But we cannot constantly repeat the mistakes of the past if we are to make progress. Since there is no "unpublish" function, we simply do what we can with the old submissions (i.e. make the better), and try to learn from what we did wrong in the past.
moozooh wrote:
I won't touch the fact that 10:2 yes vote ratio is usually considered good response from the viewers. The reason adelikat gets the lash more often than Truncated is that the latter does seem to put more attention to audience reception even when he doesn't personally consider a game particularly good for TASing.
Bullshit. If that were the case, this would have never been published. Judges make decisions, and good judges try to do so with the best possible information. I specifically went out of my way to try and stir up conversation about this run, and received responses from 3 people. One was the author, who gave a very good and balanced opinion of his run, and the other two had already posted. So, in the two months this was on the workbench, no one cared enough to watch it and defend it, despite having been asked to. As for the 10:2 ratio, you know as well as I do that weak yes votes are like a plague around here. People vote yes because they liked the name of the game, a specific small section of the movie, a characters name, or simply because they don't want to hurt the author's feelings. I put much more stock in what people write, and if you look closer at the first page, there are 4 people who cared enough to say they liked it. I'm not going to get into a conversation about the magic number of yes votes or anything like that, but if someone doesn't care enough about a run to actually post something, and then comes out of the woodwork later to bitch about it later, I have a hard time feeling sorry for them since they had every opportunity to express their opinion.
moozooh wrote:
The first step is not getting pissed at any criticism (not taking it personally in the first place), and instead trying to improve the situation. Nothing is perfect, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't improve at each opportunity. Clinging to all kinds of standards which have been made historically (and which may or may have not been relevant to the site's current state), for one, is not a good way to improve.
Amazingly, you took the words right out of my mouth, but for the completely different viewpoint. If I were to be adhering to ancient standards, every run of a racing game with one track played would automatically be accepted, since we accepted two of them, back in the day. If Bubble Bobble was accepted, the recent Chack'n'Pop should have been too. Let's face it, there are many, many examples of poor games that have been accepted before, and if we were to go blindly off of what we've done in the past, we probably wouldn't even need judges, as there wouldn't be any need to reject anything. I am trying to improve the site. Whether I did or did not do that with this run is obviously up for debate, and I'm glad. I just wish the debate could have happened in the two months prior to rejection.
moozooh wrote:
mmbossman wrote:
I do try to think about the audience in general, and think of whether they will be entertained. If a run is full of action, and has some smaller errors, it will likely be accepted. If a run is mediocre on action, but is impeccably done, it will also likely be accepted. But this run, and runs like it, are boring (I also agree that the three storybook TASes you mention are boring, but take that up with whoever originally accepted them in 2004 and 2005, not me. We don't unpublish movies here, so that's a topic for a different thread, or a different PM).
This is an example of a certain past event interfering with the present, among other things.
It's obvious that any and all movies won't be received the same way by any given audience. As such, the main audience you as a judge should pay the most attention to is the one that needs this movie. Because those who doesn't need it don't have to watch it either. Think of it as a restaurant menu: there are always things you will never eat, but someone else eats that every day. The restaurant's goal is to serve their customers, so they will put that dish on the menu because there is a demand for it.
As much as you've made very good points so far, the restaurant menu analogy you present is just as horrible of logic as adelikat's post on the previous page. Restaurants change their menu all the time, especially when something isn't selling well. If they really wanted to serve their customers, there would be more Japanese/Thai/Mexican/German/American/British restaurants around. But you don't see those, because most restaurants have decided to specialize. We also have the luxury to specialize, but instead of doing it by genre, or platform, we choose to do it by content.
moozooh wrote:
If you aren't a part of the relevant audience that would like this movie, gathering their response is the first thing you should do (as you state you do in general). However, what exactly do you need to believe that audience likes a movie beside that exact audience telling you they like a movie (which was what happened here, in particular)? This is something I don't understand and would like to have a clarification for.
I believe I already covered this previously, if you don't believe so, please let me know.
moozooh wrote:
mmbossman wrote:
If we accept every run that is well done from a precision standpoint, we'd get bitched at for being too lenient and decreasing the entertainment value of the site.
I do understand I haven't been registered at the site for very long, but could you please point me to the last such argument posed here?
B.O.B. and Combatribes. I believe there are more recent ones, especially dealing with rejected runs of hacks, but my mind is drawing a blank at the moment. If they haven't been any recent arguments about it, then maybe it's because there haven't been many runs published that actually decrease the entertainment value of the site?
moozooh wrote:
So it's pleasing the audience that should be the primary objective. Correct me if I'm wrong.
As such, depriving them of the quality content despite their vocal support without a strong reason is not a good thing, no matter if you're a judge, a jury, an executor, or whoever.
Vocal support is the key phrase here, which I've already addressed. If those 10 people who voted yes had even just taken the time to say "Good run, I really enjoyed it", I would have had a much different view of the perceived audience. Instead, there were 4 people who voted with strong yes's, and only two of those people tried to defend their decision when blatantly questioned about it.
moozooh wrote:
Dammit wrote:
In any case, I'm unlikely to do any more of these envelope-pushing TASes.
Personally, if I were a judge, I'd rather be ashamed the situation has come to this. :|
If you were a judge you might have realized that he said this way before the decision to reject was reached, and that trying to indicate that I or any other judge "caused" dammit to say that is deceitful.
As said before, I hope very much that he, and other people, continue to try new things. Just because this one didn't work out as he may have hoped doesn't mean that the next one won't.
EDIT: Also, it seems your own page supports a lot of the logic I used above (also see number 7): http://tasvideos.org/Moozooh/MostPopularExcuses.html#3ALotOfPeopleVotedYesThisCanTBeBad
Joined: 11/18/2006
Posts: 2426
Location: Back where I belong
Aqfaq wrote:
Xkeeper wrote:
I'm seriously beginning to question if having adelikat and mmbossman as judges is the right choice.
You are kidding, right?
I think they are doing really good job! Some rules might be worth rewriting every now and then, but there's nothing wrong with the judges. If there was a poll, I would definitely vote these exact persons for judges.
I'm surprised this movie wasn't published:
- This was a pretty popular RPG series, back in the day, so rejecting on quality of game choice doesn't feel right.
- The game is DESTROYED by the TAS. A typical run of this game would take days. So, we definitely don't have 'Walk to the right' syndrome.
- We already have Might & Magic 1 published for NES.
So, the only difference is entertainment. I guess the fight scene in M&M1 is enough to make it not-boring for the casual observer...
Joined: 10/27/2004
Posts: 1977
Location: Making an escape
Dude, did you just say Bubble Bobble was dull and boring? I love that run! :O
Edit: Just to add something actually constructive, the situation behind Combatribes wasn't that it's acceptance showed too much leniency, but that rather one of the authors of the movie was also a judge and publisher. Within ten minutes of it being submitted, Phil published it almost before anyone knew about it. As such, people cried foul, claiming abuse of power and personal bias. That they found it dull was auxiliary to that.
A hundred years from now, they will gaze upon my work and marvel at my skills but never know my name. And that will be good enough for me.
I'm surprised this movie wasn't published:
- This was a pretty popular RPG series, back in the day, so rejecting on quality of game choice doesn't feel right.
- The game is DESTROYED by the TAS. A typical run of this game would take days. So, we definitely don't have 'Walk to the right' syndrome.
- We already have Might & Magic 1 published for NES.
So, the only difference is entertainment. I guess the fight scene in M&M1 is enough to make it not-boring for the casual observer...
I guess whether or not you feel that a run should be published really depends on who you think the audience for the site is. My understanding is that the movies published on the site are meant to be appreciated by "normal" people (i.e. non-TASers), which means that entertainment is, in fact, the single most important metric we should use when it comes to publishing a movie. If a movie is totally incomprehensible unless you run it frame-by-frame, then odds are that it'll be hard to enjoy.
For what it's worth, my views as described above also mean that our focus on speed is occasionally mis-applied. Speed is a good general-purpose metric for enforcing precision, but it doesn't leave room for immensely entertaining movies that aren't as fast as inhumanly possible. I think also that many of the TASers here have gotten speed so deeply ingrained into their thought processes that they automatically equate speed with entertainment (as if the less time they spend looking at a game, the better the movie was), which makes it even harder for the occasional "playaround" movie to get published. It doesn't help that we don't have a good category for those movies on the site.
Of course, this movie might always make Alden's Gruefood Delight. You just won't get an AVI of it.
Pyrel - an open-source rewrite of the Angband roguelike game in Python.
I liked seeing the B.O.B. TAS. Because it's an almost unfair-hard game, particularly in the vehicular levels.
Admittedly I don't like rewatching it that much, but I'd rather have it than adelikat's recent Batman Begins TAS, as an example. (The run was great but I didn't like the game- it lagged badly and I didn't like the music)
I liked the Shadowgate, Deja Vu, and Uninvited TASes and was aable to keep up with them reasonably well. (The main reason I prefer AVIs is I can rewind and frame-advance through anything I miss. The second is I can play my collection of them in the background without loading ROMs, switching emulators, etc.)
*stops before he goes more offtopic onto state of later M&M runs*
Anyway, isn't one of the points of having many judges achieving a greater spread of familiarity with games?
Derakon wrote:
Of course, this movie might always make Alden's Gruefood Delight. You just won't get an AVI of it.
Joined: 11/18/2006
Posts: 2426
Location: Back where I belong
eternaljwh wrote:
Anyway, isn't one of the points of having many judges achieving a greater spread of familiarity with games?
I'm not quite sure where you got that idea, could you explain further?
As for "greater spread of familiarity with games", of the (now) 19 movies published in the last 4 days, 10 of them are new runs that did not obsolete anything. Just thought I'd throw that out there...
I'm not sure where I got it either (occasional flip through SDA fora perhaps) but I think it's a good idea anyway.
If you're familiar with a game, you'll have a better idea of what's expected on a playthrough/not, what's precise/not, and what's normally possible/not.
To reuse Ad's Batman Begins run as example, the casual viewer would not know that Batman's not supposed to have unlimited multijumps if they don't look at the submission text and hadn't played it. I suppose this means the audience would be narrower, unlike say the recent Fire Emblem run where it's so blatantly obvious that they're playing with loaded dice.
----
Sorry I wandered off-topic.
Joined: 11/11/2006
Posts: 1235
Location: United Kingdom
eternaljwh wrote:
To reuse Ad's Batman Begins run as example, the casual viewer would not know that Batman's not supposed to have unlimited multijumps if they don't look at the submission text and hadn't played it. I suppose this means the audience would be narrower, unlike say the recent Fire Emblem run where it's so blatantly obvious that they're playing with loaded dice.
Actually I thought Batman Begins was interesting and Fire Emblem was boring. So there you go.
<adelikat> I am annoyed at my irc statements ending up in forums & sigs
This site started out accepting anything that was technically impressive, no matter how boring it was to watch, because TASing as an art was "new and exciting". Bubble Bobble, one track Top Gear, B.O.B.; they are all uninteresting to watch, yet they were all published because they showed off a technically impressive feat for the time. But we cannot constantly repeat the mistakes of the past if we are to make progress. Since there is no "unpublish" function, we simply do what we can with the old submissions (i.e. make the better), and try to learn from what we did wrong in the past.
Unpublishing would definitly solve some situations, or maybe not accepting an improvement would be the next best thing. In relation to the Top Gear run I don't find it boring to watch, just technically unimpressive. It could be removed if someone was to make a full run of it. As for this run I fail to see how anyone could vote yes to it. Unless you're some die hard fan of the game.
side notes: I haven't watched this movie.
adelikat wrote:
What gamer would think infinite jumps might be a part of the game. What game does that intentionally?
Ferret Warlord wrote:
Kirby. :P
He hit the lode on that one. Air(SMB hack), Kiwi Craze if I understood what I was seeing right, recent Castlevanias (Aria of Sorrow, Circle of the Moon) once you get enough powerups...admittedly short list.
Specifically in jump area, a better example would be double-jumps in SMB2US.
A better example would be the DW1 run that has absolutely no unwanted random encounters. The uninitiated won't know how often you run into monsters.
Or that items in SMRPG aren't infinitely reusable (or how often you Get a Freebie!).
I'm not sure why the full Top Gear run didn't obsolete the 1-track, is all My mistake, that's the Rad Racer full run I'm thinking of.
Look, xkeeper and moozooh(!), I'm sorry, but this game is incredibly boring to watch.
That's just how it is.
I respect the fact that most people will find this run boring. I wouldn't say it's even close to my all-time favorite movie. But I found it non-boring to watch. That's just how it is. It's boring to you and a bunch of other people. That's just how it is too. But I think it's not really productive to say or imply that it's objectively "boring" and that people who enjoy it are essentially wrong for not recognizing this "fact"
----
I agree with Aqfaq et al that adelikat and mmbossman are not horrible judges/people/whatever. At the risk of sounding like a total kiss-ass, I think they do a very fine job at a thankless task.
----
RE: the restaurant metaphor: one of the reasons restaurants restrict their menu is the physical limitation of how many items you can offer. It's impractical to keep stock of a bunch of things some people won't order. On the flip side, most restaurants are happy to modify their dishes in ways to please specific people. They will generally try to be as flexible as possible with what they have to work with.
The magic of information is that there is little cost to keeping a bunch of stuff around that only a few people will like.
----
I'm sure people are tired of hearing it from me, but something like Gruefood Delight should exist as an officially sanctioned and community run section of this website. This would also be a graceful way of "unpublishing" some old runs. We can point to the main body of publications and say "These are freaking awesome, 90% of people will like them" Then we can point at the others and say "These might be boring to you, but they are legitimate, well-done TAS's and a certain audience will like them" AVI's would not be automatically created for them to conserve resources, if that is thought to be a roadblock.
This increases the full menu size while actually reducing the "Lunch Specials" menu that most people will want. This recognizes the efforts of players in our community and encourages them to continue making movies of all sorts.
Am I way off base here?
In my opinion, you're on the money. Such a section would also give us a good place to put the "variant" runs (e.g. 100%, low%, glitch-free, different character, playaround) that people currently complain about every time a new one is made. The "default" run (generally an any% run doing whatever is required to win) would go onto the standard page, and there'd be a link in the description saying "Enjoyed this movie? See more movies for this game here" with "here" being a link to that game's section in Gruefood Delight. Except of course that we'd need to find a name that doesn't imply that the movies are bad somehow.
I do think it'd be worth making AVIs for these "semi-published" movies, but since right now there's a limit to who has the knowledge to do encodings, it shouldn't be a prerequisite of publishing. That is, the movie should be publishable sans AVI, but people should be able to submit AVIs later to be added to the publication.
Pyrel - an open-source rewrite of the Angband roguelike game in Python.
Emulator Coder, Site Developer, Site Owner, Expert player
(3600)
Joined: 11/3/2004
Posts: 4739
Location: Tennessee
For the record, I am not against this idea. Provided it is a kind of "sub section".
But I am opposed to the attitude that since it _should_ be that way, we should accept more runs. (I wish I could word that better). Basically, we shouldn't abuse the system in place just because we think it should be the system.
Also, I am opposed to unpublishing movies and rejecting improvements. When a new game is published, it is kind of like accepting it to the family. And it gives a pool of games for us to all compete and perfect. I like that someone can find improvements to a game and work on a run without fear that their better movie will get the boot.
But I am opposed to the attitude that since it _should_ be that way, we should accept more runs.
I'm with you on that. I didn't mean to imply otherwise. Ultimately it's Bisqwit's site, and I don't expect judges to suddenly change their set of guidelines.
So I'll continue rabble-rousing until I'm satisfied :)
I'm seriously beginning to question if having adelikat and mmbossman as judges is the right choice.
Hmm, time for some:
&
Sage advice from a friend of Jim: So put your tinfoil hat back in the closet, open your eyes to the truth, and realize that the government is in fact causing austismal cancer with it's 9/11 fluoride vaccinations of your water supply.
&
