I wonder how many flame wars certain N64 games have created here (and how many they will start in the future).
I don't know, but if you were to boil water on the flames created by these wars you could supply a small contry with energy, indefinitely.
I find these new camera angles very fun. It's something fresh in a game that I have seen a thousand TASes of. It would be a shame if this run wouldn't be published.
If the answers to this line of inquiry is no, that's no reason to keep this from being accepted.
IMO the chosen camera angles were not even nearly as annoying as to warrant rejection, even though I like most of the "traditional" camera angles more. (For example, the "almost 2D" sections before the boss fights are better viewed from the side, as usual, rather than from the behind/front as with this submission.) Any possible future run should stick to the "traditional" angles.
I really don't like this "The improvement is too small, so I vote no" argument. You effectively have two movies competing for being displayed on the site: The existing movie (movie A), and the new candiate (movie B). I think one should judge these on their own merits, and not give movie A any extra credit just because it happens to be published. Saying that one shouldn't publish movie B because it improved on movie A, but not enough, is the same as saying that you think visitors to the site should see a slightly inferior one, instead of the current record.
If the publishing process has become so cumbersome that one rejects an improvement because it would be too much of a bother to publish it, then something needs to be done with it.
As for the entertainment argument, I more sympathetic to that, but I still think that speed should be the primary goal, since having entertainment as the primary goal makes things very subjective and unpredictable. If a faster movie is submitted, then the default should be to accept it, and only clearly inferior theatrics should change that. On the other hand, I think it should be possible to submit a movie with *ties* with the current movie, and then have them compete solely on entertainment value.
I honestly don't like the new camera angles. I simply can't tell what's going on. It was hard enough to tell with the other camera to me even, and I just have a pet peeve of when the camera goes through the solid objects of the stage.
I didn't notice the three frame improvement...I never felt this site was only about making an arbitrary number on an arbitrary page go lower. Voting no.
First, I don't understand why people have to spout what they vote, but that aside...
EVERYONE TAKE NOTE, game time completion is an arbitrary number. Don't worry about it when submitting runs, k? Just make sure the camera angles are good.
*crosses arms* I need to be ENTERTAINED! Hmpf!
amaurea wrote:
Saying that one shouldn't publish movie B because it improved on movie A, but not enough, is the same as saying that you think visitors to the site should see a slightly inferior one, instead of the current record.
Sorry if this is news to you, but this _is_ current doctrine here. It disappoints some people (like me) but that's the way management makes it right now.
sonicpacker, though I am seen as worthless here, you have my agreement on your points.
I really don't like this "The improvement is too small, so I vote no" argument.
I dislike this argument too, but the problem with this movie is that it doesn't entertain as much as the published movie. In this case, the total time improvement is worth much less than the "sacrificed" entertainment. (It wasn't really sacrificed, it was a failed attempt to increase entertainment, in my opinion.)
Some movies got rejected just because of this. This is especially true for "fighting" games like "Super Smash Bros" or games like "Teenage Mutant Hero Turtles".
amaurea wrote:
I really don't like this "The improvement is too small, so I vote no" argument.
Most important for this is:
- How "perfect" is the previous movie?
- How many times has it already been improved?
This game has many published movies and is highly optimized, so I would say yes for even the smallest time improvement.
For some other games, only one movie was ever made. Chances are quite low that everything will be done as perfect as possible. For example, the WIP for SMW2 and (afaik) also the final movie will have some parts which are known to be improvable, but remaking them would be too time-consuming. I also found some improvements for my own movie (I think it would be ~5sec overall). Such movies must be improved at least by ALL known improvements.
---
Thanks Nahoc for the quick reply.
I have a question what if this run was submitted before the other 0 star? It would have been accepted correct? I highly doubt if this run had came first that anybody would be arguing to replace a quicker run with a slower one because the camera angles are(supposedly) better.Then nobody who has actually tased sm64 is against this improvement, its retarded for a run to get rejected by idiots who have never played the game or are just to dumb to understand whats going on.
I have a question what if this run was submitted before the other 0 star? It would have been accepted correct? I highly doubt if this run had came first that anybody would be arguing to replace a quicker run with a slower one because the camera angles are(supposedly) better.Then nobody who has actually tased sm64 is against this improvement, its retarded for a run to get rejected by idiots who have never played the game or are just to dumb to understand whats going on.
Ignorance is not idiocy or being dumb. Some people just don't care about SM64 to spend massive amounts of time learning how it works to watch a 5 minute superplay. I know I don't. Does that make me an idiot or dumb? If so, then you are too, because you don't know Somari inside and out.
Some people played it as a kid and are just amazed to see it broken so quickly.
I have a question what if this run was submitted before the other 0 star? It would have been accepted correct? I highly doubt if this run had came first that anybody would be arguing to replace a quicker run with a slower one because the camera angles are(supposedly) better.Then nobody who has actually tased sm64 is against this improvement, its retarded for a run to get rejected by idiots who have never played the game or are just to dumb to understand whats going on.
Ignorance is not idiocy or being dumb. Some people just don't care about SM64 to spend massive amounts of time learning how it works to watch a 5 minute superplay. I know I don't. Does that make me an idiot or dumb? If so, then you are too, because you don't know Somari inside and out.
Some people played it as a kid and are just amazed to see it broken so quickly.
Yes if i go and vote no on are Somari movie that i know nothing about i'm an idiot, but i'm not going to do that because i accept that i know nothing about Somari and should stay out of its voting process. You cannot vote in the United States till your 18 for a reason. They don't want you voting on stuff you don't understand, same should apply here. Don't vote against a movie because you don't understand whats going on. It pure ignorance to vote against something for no reason other than being too dumb, or lazy to understanding whats going on.
I have a question what if this run was submitted before the other 0 star? It would have been accepted correct? I highly doubt if this run had came first that anybody would be arguing to replace a quicker run with a slower one because the camera angles are(supposedly) better.
The question is a bit invalid because the 3 frames difference is not (AFAIK) caused by the different camera angles. Nobody would submit a movie which is deliberately 3 frames slower for no rational reason. Your question would be valid if it were the camera angles which made the run 3 frames faster, in which case there is no choice.
The more relevant question would be: If someone submitted a run which was exactly as fast as this one but with "better" camera angles, would it replace this?
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Ok, here's a recap.
A group of Japanese TASers have improved the previous run by three frames, one frame per instance. However, the camera work in their run wasn't received well at all due to annoying zooming and angle choices making it nearly impossible to tell what was going on.
The argument presented by those who are NOT in favor of this run obsoleting the previous is that the camera work makes this movie so much less entertaining three frames can't possibly make up for that. Thus, considering it was a stylistic choice and not a prerequisite for those frames to be saved, it was suggested the authors fix it instead.
The arguments presented by those who ARE in favor of this run obsoleting the previous, boil down to three things:
1) rejecting this submission would be rude to the authors as they have exerted much effort making it;
2) this is a speedrun site, entertainment doesn't matter;
3) you have to TAS SM64 to be able to vote no (voting yes, however, is perfectly alright), and people doing that are idiots.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
3) you have to TAS SM64 to be able to vote no (voting yes, however, is perfectly alright), and people doing that are idiots.
I think that was only the opinion of 1 or 2 people, and not everyone who is in favor of this run thinks that (I sure don't think the No voters are idiots).
Voting yes. I think that a) entertainment in the camera angles is a valid factor with which to reject a run, but b) the camera angles chosen were fine and not particularly annoying; they didn't detract from the run, at least.
I voted no because honestly.. those camera angles were.. yeah.. not that terribly well done. I have a fair understanding of this title and learned a lot over the past few years... and even with that knowledge, I had trouble following totally. The other one had the odd angle issue as well, but mostly it was a lot easier to follow and therefore to me personally, felt more entertaining.
But because I've never TAS'd Super Mario 64, nor have the desire to ever do so, it's my opinion, take it or leave it.
Mr. Kelly R. Flewin
Mr. Kelly R. Flewin
Just another random gamer
----
<OmnipotentEntity> How do you people get bored in the span of 10 seconds? Worst ADD ever.
These camera angles are really annoying. It's a real shame considering the effort put into this movie (55k rerecords is still a lot) but I simply can't vote yes on this.
Also, to certain people in this thread; stop thinking your opinion is an absolute truth and that anyone disagreeing with you is stupid. Yes, this is directed to a bunch of the people who want to see the movie published (not everyone, but I just read 6 pages of boo-frigging-hoo and I can't be bothered to go back and figure out names). You like the movie, that's alright. The reason it's probably not going to be accepted is not - I repeat: not - because we think you are worthless (somebody said this - I believe it was true) but because you are a minority. That's simply how voting systems work.
And to people who dislike the argument of "the improvement isn't big enough": it's not about the number of frames this movie has not being sufficiently lower than the number of frames the previous movie has. It's about the improvement not being big enough to warrant the (arguably, but the majority agrees) significant decrease in entertainment.
To the authors: I really think it's a shame the camera angles don't work. I get what you were trying to do, and to some extend I agree that SM64 movies are all looking the same, but this simply isn't a good way to change that. If you ever decide to redo this movie without these camera angles, it would be greatly appreciated and I'm pretty sure it would be accepted without argument (then again, it's SM64, "no argument" is rather relative here). But great work on the improvement guys, keep up the good work.
Voting yes, but I think this argument points to an endemic problem with the publication system, which someone brought up already in the context of author attribution: when you publish a tiny improvement, the entire old movie 'goes away' from the perspective of a casual viewer who arrives at the site and doesn't know which of the 17 previous iterations of a run might be interesting to watch as well as the current best.
When I introduce people to TASes, I tend to show them the old Brain Age run, and then the three best iterations of the Pokemon Yellow run, and then the 0-star. Now that this movie exists, I'll definitely show it instead: I loved these new camera angles! And especially the zooming in and out in time with the sound effects! Why on earth do you need to see exactly where mario is going? The point is he's zooming around crazily and beating the game in five minutes. But that's my opinion, and clearly not everyone agrees.
Therefore, both for purposes of author attribution and to not upset people who liked older versions of runs, it seems like we need some way to make the history of a run more accessible.
Maybe the current publication could have a list of noteworthy older versions -- points at which the route or style changed drastically, etc. In addition, I think it would make sense to give a reverse-chronological list of authors who have contributed to the current major version of a run, rather than just listing the authors of the latest improvement.
A warb degombs the brangy. Your gitch zanks and leils the warb.
