DarkKobold: This run had pretty abysmal feedback. I'd say that this game, especially on the NES, is not fit for publication. There are two better platforms for this game that might be publishable. Sorry, better luck next time.
And the part about "several hundred years" is silly; NES TMNT was released in 1994, several years AFTER the first iterations of SF2 and Mortal Kombat, all of which had combo systems, reversals, and vastly superior quality in every way.
Ever heard of progress, you idiot? 1993 was the last year of NES developers' activity, and they were already moving to newer platforms, that were really ABLE to include the things you need so badly. Newton didn't have the stuff 20th century people had to create a TV. NES just couln't provide the power and memory size necessary for your combo systems.
The exact thing you do is that:
You take the result of insanely hard work (that makes progress real) for granted, thinking that the inventions of the later times somehow give you a reason to shit on the early time inventions, that in fact were not any easier to make than the later ones.
Предлагаю переименовать тред в "русский срач 2012".
Let's rename the topic to "russian quarrel 2012". Just waiting for moozooh to join XD
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
I don't think you understood what I was saying. I mentioned tic throws. A tic throw is when you perform an attack (often a jab or short) to create a blockstun state for the opponent and take advantage by throwing them, as they can't recover in time.
Since NES TMNT has no reversals and few animation frames, this necessarily makes for a very braindead game with a degenerate strategy.
Watching feos' videos I haven't noticed such problem. No single degenerate strategy, but lots of unpredictable situations.
IronSlayer wrote:
Fatalities and 2 vs. 2 are completely irrelevant to a fighting game's depth, strategy, and viability as an interesting title. However, the lack of a combo system, the most basic element of ANY FIGHTER, is.
My point is, this is not any fighter. Like many NES games, this is an experimental short with unique gameplay twist, similar to Technos' titles (River City Ransom, etc) that combine beat-em-up with some sports game features.
IronSlayer wrote:
You might as well argue that a platformer without jumping isn't missing anything significant. Yeah, you can find an exception here and there (Bionic Commando), but it's a massive missing piece which needs something really amazing and unique to make up for it.
Sadly, that's not the case for NES TMNT.
Yes it is the case with NES TMNT. That ball mechanic is as outstanding as the grapple mechanic in Bionic Commando.
IronSlayer wrote:
AnS wrote:
SNES version is your average fighting where you only need to memorize all attacks and combos and then just rely on your reflexes to settle attacks with defenses. Maybe I'm not aware, but is there anything innovative or experimental in that game?
Absolutely. Have you watched high-level SNES TMNT play? There's a lot more where this comes from, but here's a completely random example;
What should I see in this video? I see two well-trained players exchanging attacks in similar fashion to hundreds of 2D-fightings on arcades. I didn't see any novelty. It only proves that SNES version is a clone of a clone of a clone of Street Fighter 2. Then what's the point in learning all the attacks and combos of this particular clone? I guess the only point would be because it's based on the Turtles franchise.
IronSlayer wrote:
Huh? Why reference Guilty Gear, which is the most complicated fighting series ever made? That's like saying that applying the principles of chess to Tic-Tac-Toe got me beat at it. Like...what?!
Applying principles of chess to Chapayev game got you beat. Like that.
I mentiond GG on purpose. The series is for nerds only. And for others its tool-assisted speedrun would be as entertaining as NES TMNT, which is: not much. And here goes the conclusion: complexity of a fighting game doesn't matter. Your insults are not justified.
first mortal kombat has a few unintended combos,i play it on snes sometimes at university and you can watch combovideos too on the internet(i do jab infinite on corner all the time).
snes turtles is just a clone of SF2,even though it's very good,perhaps better than sf2 on the snes.
This game has a lot of potential for the superplay with it's glitches and mechanics and i dont really get what is it with Ironslayer.This game's designer must have known they couldn't do a SF2 clone on NES so they invested in different gameplay and mechanics in order for this to stand out.And it does,just like super smash bros did on n64 and other unorthodox fighters did(onimusha blade warriors,inuyasha 3d fighter,virtual oratorio on tangram).
Let the correct audience judge this game and its TAS,the ACTUAL PLAYERS.I'll probably end up repeating this on every single thread,though.
I don't wanna spur more controversy to OoT thread,so i'll reveal this here,i dind't really enjoy the all temples TAS,even though i think it's a good game,because it had so many cutscenes and it's long for an arbirtrary reason.I still believe it should be published,because the players accept it as valid.Also that thread gets locked just like kids on a cellar.
TAS i'm interested:
megaman series: mmbn1 all chips, mmx3 any% psx glitched
fighting games with speed goals in general
Few facts screwed again. NES TMNT TF was developed and first released in 1993.
Not according to Wikipedia, which states that 1994 was the release.
Shiru wrote:
First MK that had an actual combo system was MK3, released in 1995. Even if you count the thing that MK2 had as a combo system, it was released in 1993. So it was zero years after the first MK game that had a combo system in the best case.
Yes, MK2 obviously had a combo system, and was released in 1993.
Regardless, you're missing the point, which was that there WERE quality, popular fighters before 1993/1994 which had combo systems, reversals, and vastly deeper, superior gameplay to the lousy NES TMNT. If you're nitpicking MK, focus on the other, more relevant example; Street Fighter 2.
The World Warrior came out in 1991, and Super Turbo (again, widely considered the greatest fighting game ever, to this day) was released in the same year as NES TMNT, 1994.
feos wrote:
Ever heard of progress, you idiot?
Haha, this is so ironic coming from you! Yes, I have heard of progress, and it's precisely why I don't give NES TMNT bonus points simply for coming out on the NES. The bottom line is that it was on the NES, which was a horrible console for fighters. It sucked as a competitive, deep fighter, and was especially lousy compared to what else was out in 1994.
Your nostalgia and petulant, childish anger won't change this.
AnS wrote:
Watching feos' videos I haven't noticed such problem. No single degenerate strategy, but lots of unpredictable situations.
From this and other statements, I have gathered that you don't play fighting games much, nor know much about them. That's totally fine by itself, but it makes your posts towards me ridiculous.
If I'm someone who appreciates deep, competitive fighting games, and dislike NES TMNT because it isn't, who are you to tell me I'm "wrong"? Especially when you know so little about the fighting gaming genre?
AnS wrote:
My point is, this is not any fighter. Like many NES games, this is an experimental short with unique gameplay twist, similar to Technos' titles (River City Ransom, etc) that combine beat-em-up with some sports game features.
I think you're the first person who has ever claimed NES TMNT was not a fighter! You have two characters fighting one another, each with health bars. You have to win 2/3 rounds, and a round ends when one character's health bar runs out. That's a textbook fighter.
AnS wrote:
What should I see in this video? I see two well-trained players exchanging attacks in similar fashion to hundreds of 2D-fightings on arcades. I didn't see any novelty. It only proves that SNES version is a clone of a clone of a clone of Street Fighter 2. Then what's the point in learning all the attacks and combos of this particular clone? I guess the only point would be because it's based on the Turtles franchise.
Once again, if all you see is "two well-trained players exchanging attacks", you simply don't know much about fighting games. There was zoning, mix-ups, outstanding corner pressure, frame traps, and the inclusion of a super meter makes blocking much riskier than usual.
Incidentally, all those are elements mostly or completely lacking from NES TMNT.
AnS wrote:
I mentiond GG on purpose. The series is for nerds only. And for others its tool-assisted speedrun would be as entertaining as NES TMNT, which is: not much.
Only for nerds? If I were feos, I would throw a temper tantrum right now about how you insulted one of my parents.
But honestly, I don't even understand what that statement means. Only for nerds? Is that a good or a bad thing? What does it have to do with the game's quality?
AnS wrote:
And here goes the conclusion: complexity of a fighting game doesn't matter.
To you, who isn't even a fan of the genre. To me and millions of other players, they matter a lot.
I don't miss the point: I clearly see that for some reason you trying to put your personal, subjective opinion on the game as an objective fact. This is impossible, that's why you getting into these lenghty posts trying to prove something in weird ways (personal opinion doesn't need to be proven), all kinds of highlighted text, and facts manipulation.
I wonder how you manage to miss the fact that if it actually was a crappy game, you wouldn't even see neither this TAS in the first place, nor the defensive comments from few people in this thread.
I wonder how you manage to miss the fact that if it actually was a crappy game, you wouldn't even see neither this TAS in the first place, nor the defensive comments from few people in this thread.
IronSlayer,if you don't like the game,you can say it's shit,just don't go givin your opinion on the TAS of a game you know squats about.Similar to a SF player talking about the lack of depth in MK because it has less button or some crazy reasoning that doesn't involve actual understanding of the game.f you wanna see a FG with no depth,try digimon franchise fighters for GBA as an example(mostly mashing as far as i'm concerned and i played that a lot)
TAS i'm interested:
megaman series: mmbn1 all chips, mmx3 any% psx glitched
fighting games with speed goals in general
I don't miss the point: I clearly see that for some reason you trying to put your personal, subjective opinion on the game as an objective fact.
Of course it's my opinion. What else would it be? But I'm not going to put any qualifier on it. From my personal experiences playing it and even seeing the videos that feos linked, TMNT NES is a lousy, shitty mess with no depth or interest as a fighter.
By the way, I made a long post highlighting numerous problems with the TAS video. Game selection was just one of my points. Let's stop pretending that was the only or even main argument I made in my initial reply.
More importantly, I just don't think this is a good TAS. Rather than incessantly bitching about my opinion on the game overall, why don't you and the other fans of NES TMNT prove me wrong by making a cool TAS of the game?!
Clearly, fisker's video isn't it.
Shiru wrote:
I wonder how you manage to miss the fact that if it actually was a crappy game, you wouldn't even see neither this TAS in the first place, nor the defensive comments from few people in this thread.
This is hilarious. There are always defensive comments from people about whatever games, movies, or books they like, regardless of how shitty, brain-dead, or derivative the work is.
No, I wasn't aware there was a fanbase for NES TMNT, or that they would latch onto a single sentence I wrote like a bunch of angry babies with their diapers in a twist. No, I don't care if they like it or not. (And neither should they care what I think about it)
Joined: 3/8/2012
Posts: 398
Location: Windfall Island
IronSlayer wrote:
More importantly, I just don't think this is a good TAS. Rather than incessantly bitching about my opinion on the game overall, why don't you and the other fans of NES TMNT prove me wrong by making a cool TAS of the game?!
You are the one who has a giant problem with the TAS, and you said that you could easily make a better one. How about you take some time out of your very busy day of ranting about this TAS, and prove that this TAS is bad. I would very much like to see you make a better one. Go on and prove us all wrong.
IronSlayer wrote:
Your counterargument would be like me saying that the Earth is round and then you telling me that I need to show it's flat so I can "prove us all wrong".
Haha, this is so ironic coming from you! Yes, I have heard of progress, and it's precisely why I don't give NES TMNT bonus points simply for coming out on the NES. The bottom line is that it was on the NES, which was a horrible console for fighters. It sucked as a competitive, deep fighter, and was especially lousy compared to what else was out in 1994.
Haven't seen such people before... I repeat you for the last time, that you ARE JUDGING NES game based on 16 bit point of view. If you fail to understand that, you definitely won't understand anything we are talking about. And I am out of examples.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
This isn't the first time one of your opinions stirs up drama. In fact, this has been the case several times since you returned to this forum. There are many ways to state an opinion about something, but your word choices and tone make most of your opinions rude and aggravating. While feos may need to avoid Internet forums, you may want to improve your netiquette.
It's so deliciously ironic when someone pontificating about "netiquette" comes across as a massively arrogant douchebag themselves. Congratulations, Zeupar.
And sorry to let you down douche, but I will continue to state my opinion about games in whatever tone I wish to. If that offends certain people (yourself included, apparently), that is their problem.
Yeah, the fact that your response reinforces my advice is pretty ironic as well, heh. Anyway, I hope you actually spent some time thinking about what I said after your outburst, if only to avoid wasting your time in this kind of arguments in the future.
IronSlayer wrote:
"Oh my God, you insulted a game I like! You have thus insulted me personally!!!"
I don't care about this game.
AzumaK wrote: I swear my 1 year old daughter's favorite TASVideo is your R4MI run :3
xxNKxx wrote: ok thanks handsome feos :D
Help improving TASVideos!
You are the one who has a giant problem with the TAS,
A quick glance at the voting results above shows that I'm hardly the only "one".
Abahbob wrote:
and you said that you could easily make a better one.
No, I never said this. What I did write was that
"The whole play-through looked like something I could cook up in 20-30 minutes with a couple of re-records here and there."
ie it looks unpolished, unskilled, and unimpressive.
Abahbob wrote:
I would very much like to see you make a better one. Go on and prove us all wrong.
This is comical. I made a statement stating that the game appears to lack the elements required for an entertaining TAS. It's YOUR job to prove this statement wrong, not my job to prove my own statement wrong.
Your counterargument would be like me saying that the Earth is round and then you telling me that I need to show it's flat so I can "prove us all wrong". Logic and reasoning are clearly not your strong suits.
This isn't the first time one of your opinions stirs up drama. In fact, this has been the case several times since you returned to this forum. There are many ways to state an opinion about something, but your word choices and tone make most of your opinions rude and aggravating. While feos may need to avoid Internet forums, you may want to improve your netiquette.
It's so deliciously ironic when someone pontificating about "netiquette" comes across as a massively arrogant douchebag themselves. Congratulations, Zeupar.
And sorry to let you down douche, but I will continue to state my opinion about games in whatever tone I wish to. If that offends certain people (yourself included, apparently), that is their problem.
No matter how arrogant you perceive Zeupar as, don't you still think he has a point? Have you not noticed how often people are offended by your comments and don't you think that hinders the delivery of your message? I'm sure you agree that in many arguments where you are involved, a lot of time is wasted on personal insults and irrelevant tangents just for the sake of arguing. "That's their problem" isn't a very good answer either, because it is you who is responsible for how you present your information, and taking into account the possible reactions of the people you are conveying your information to is part of normal human interaction, as I'm sure you'll agree.
I'm sure you'll think I'm even more arrogant than Zeupar for trying to teach you how to interact, but don't you think it would be ignorant of you to not briefly look in the mirror and try to find fault in yourself regarding this issue after several people have pointed it out?
Hahaha! "Want more!"
The gaming industry evolves, and the expectations of newer generations of gamers also evolves. I don't expect kids nowadays to have a good appreciation of older systems because they didn't grow up with it. Like, I grew up on NES and forward and talk to my friend 2 yrs younger, and he grew up on SNES and forward. My family even had an Atari 2600, although I don't remember much about it. But having that background adds so much more enjoyment to seeing a TAS, much like having actually played the game.
A quick note regarding grassini's comment about the correct audience being actual players. Non-players can also weigh in in terms of entertainment value. But, given NES limitations, the game genre, and many other points brought up in the thread, it would probably be biased towards rejection by non-players.
And here are my two cents to the whole arguing. The TAS community is founded on improving upon constructive criticism and bettering itself and its products. Any improvement or piece of advice towards improvement is highly valued. IronSlayer's initial comment was just a gut reaction (which wreaked all the havoc) that provided little to no insight (Iron later stated that he understands the NES limitations, which would have not caused an uproar if it replaced his original point). His 2nd point about boring and repetitive is valid; the 3rd about no skill stems from the goal choice. Netiquette is most likely the norm in this community due to its purpose. If someone chooses not to use netiquette, just nudge him/her towards that direction by clarifying the statements made. Responding emotionally will just feed the fire.
(Plus, you can slowly brainwash--I mean condition people to conform after enough time has passed, hehehe)
Hope I didn't misinterpret my understanding of the community, as I just lurk and read most of the submissions.
EDIT: And reminiscing of Atari, I found this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AknyR-kRvLc
