I agree. From now on, a world record in the 100m sprint should have to be beaten by at least 0.05 seconds in order to be a new record. No more of this 0.01 crap. It's totally unfair to the person who ran 9.78 to lose their title to someone who finished in 9.77. If you can't beat them by a large margin, don't beat them at all.
TASing or playing back a DOS game? Make sure your files match the archive at RGB Classic Games.
Joined: 6/28/2004
Posts: 219
Location: Raccoon City
hopper wrote:
I agree. From now on, a world record in the 100m sprint should have to be beaten by at least 0.05 seconds in order to be a new record. No more of this 0.01 crap. It's totally unfair to the person who ran 9.78 to lose their title to someone who finished in 9.77. If you can't beat them by a large margin, don't beat them at all.
But if you did it faster by a very very small margin, you still did it faster. Am I wrong? I can understand why there is a 0.05 second rule with sprinting. The stopwatch is being used by a person, and it is highly unlikely that the official stops the watch at the EXACT TIME he needs to. The frame count within the emulator is perfect though. With the exception of the time / frame inconsistency in the TMNT II video, I've never seen the frame count to be wrong.
If we widely discouraged improvements of less than 60 frames, many games would never be re-run for improvement. I know Contra would never see another run usingthat thinking. Genisto has it down to a near perfect science, but there must be 1 or 2 frames where he could have jumped a frame earlier. You may not think so, but a 2 frame improvement on Super Mario Bros. is much more impressive than a 3 minute improvement in Super Mario RPG.
Yesterday, less than 20 frames improvement wasn't good, today 36 frames isn't good and tomorrow 10 seconds will be bad or what?
Sorry but there's something's wrong.
I am not making drama because adelikat beats me at Punch Out or WalkerBoh beats me by 5 frames at Circus Charlie or even SMB1 that is 1 frame faster than me.
Imo, some people are frustrated here.
Hey.
Whiny assholes.
Shut up.
This isn't livejournal. If you want to cry and whine and bitch, go do it on your own space.
The goal of this site, unless Bis changed it when I wasn't looking, was to present the most flawless run of Game X possible while making it as entertaining as you can. If doesn't matter how many seconds or frames New Version is in comparison to Last Version - if it beats the previous run, it should replace the previous run unless there are glaring flaws in it somewhere.
I do not give a flying eff if New Version is a single frame or second faster than Last Version. If New Version beats the Last Version and remains entertaining, what the hell is the problem?
"Onoz, my work! I must now commit ritual seppuku because someone beated mah time! SURELY IT IS TEH END OF TEH WURLD!!!11!1one!!1exclamationpoint"
It's the goal of the effing site. If you don't want someone trumping your run, DON'T GOD DAMN SUBMIT IT.
Everyone whining and flaming in Phil's general direction need to shut the hell up and go angst elsewhere. I'm voting yes for the run. I would still vote yes if Phil only got a single frame better. Why? Because I can, because it was entertaining, and because dammit all, it's faster, no matter how much you'd like to whine otherwise.
And remember kids: Arguing on the internet is like competing in the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you're still retarded.
In short: Shut up, deal with it, go away.
I think you are missing the point, Phil. Your video only brought one new trick to the table in a game that was revolutionized by Sleepz. The sportsmanlike thing to do would have been to make a post in the SMB2 thread showing the 4-1 strategy, and then invite Sleepz to incorporate it into his own run.
Like Sleepz said, this is different from your LoZ run. Your LoZ run was tactically superior to his, and entertainingly so. Additionally, the path used was not his; the path was the work of many different people and was for use by everyone.
This is different from the competitions over DK and SMB, as well. Those games are simple, and are thought to have been exhausted of all tricks, and people both understand and enjoy the single frame oneupmanship inherent in those competitions.
Yes, you have the right to take any video published and shave just a single frame off of it, but it might not entertain many of us, and it might rub some of us the wrong way.
(Additionally, wobbling is just a really poor choice stylistically. Your video should not be published because of the wobbling alone.)
I think you are missing the point, Phil. Your video only brought one new trick to the table in a game that was revolutionized by Sleepz. The sportsmanlike thing to do would have been to make a post in the SMB2 thread showing the 4-1 strategy, and then invite Sleepz to incorporate it into his own run.
Yes but Sleepz could have posted his new trick in SMB2 thread to tell Genisto about this.
In fact, in my video there's more than 1 new trick but most of them makes only 1-2 frames faster. They aren't evident to notice for viewers.
Thinking of that DK, imo my DK isn't more entertaining than Arc's last version and he never complained, as well as other people, about that. My movie is only 1 frame faster.
Btw, I never claimed that all tricks in this video were found by me.
Like I said in an old topic, I will not stop making wobbling. Is it clear to everyone? For you that don't like this then don't watch my runs. That's simple as that.(Luckily for you, there's some games that prevent me to do that because I would lost frames and if I am going to redo CV3 then there will be no more of that.) A game is a game and it is for fun not for serious people like you.
I just want to thank KaitouKid for so humorously reminding us all that there's no point in bickering about this. I would also like to say that I think, for the most part, people have been sportsmanlike on this site up until now. When someone posts a run and people find a flaw in it before it's published, they point it out. If they wanted to see their name in lights, they could simply rerecord the movie themselves and have the faster run. When people have new ideas, they often post about them in the forums first. Everyone offers helpful advice and we support each other in the goal of creating the best possible movies. As I have said, and many others have said, the goal is perfection. If someone submits a slightly faster run, even if it's not SMB1, it deserves to be considered as a possible new record. If no one can find a flaw in the workmanship, it deserves to be published. It's as simple as that. And do you know WHY it's as simple as that? Because if we don't stick to that goal, we'll have people crying foul in an ever increasing number of situations. Foul for beating sleepz by 36 frames. Foul for beating Terimaksih because everyone knows that he's the Super Metroid god, and if anyone finds a way to beat his run, they should tell him so he can do it and still be king. Foul for beating bisqwit because it's his site. Foul for beating ME because I worked so bloody hard on this run and you didn't even do anything new. If we allow that kind of consideration, it's just going to create problems. It's not a popularity contest, and it's not like winning the Nobel Prize. They're tool-assisted speed runs, and I want to see the best one, regardless of how many frames it beat the last one by. See you all at the Special Olympics next year.
TASing or playing back a DOS game? Make sure your files match the archive at RGB Classic Games.
The goal of this site, unless Bis changed it when I wasn't looking, was to present the most flawless run of Game X possible while making it as entertaining as you can. If doesn't matter how many seconds or frames New Version is in comparison to Last Version - if it beats the previous run, it should replace the previous run unless there are glaring flaws in it somewhere.
I have also a few times expressed my support for friendly competition and cooperation.
Friendly competition is that you don't suddenly come out from darkness and steal the honor of someone else's hard work by switching the place of a comma or some other such minor a change.
You may suddenly come out from darkness if you beat it with a significant contribution, or if you have discussed your idea beforehand with the previous work owner.
This isn't like a 100m sprint - in sprint, you compete on your own power. You can't beat someone's record sprint time by watching him run and then fixing a 10ms error he did.
In TAS movies, you compete with intellect, and you can always learn from other players' movies or even reproduce them entirely.
I haven't watched this submission yet, so I refrain from voting. In any case, I wouldn't hurry publishing this movie.
Why would you even bother to do something like this if you can’t add anything to the table? As FODA said, this is really a stab in the back.
I felt the same way when Phil and Genisto beat a run of mine by a mere 4 time units. I worked hard and submitted a run 1 time unit faster than theirs. The reason I didn't feel guilty about publishing it was because much of the strategies I discovered myself. The tactics I did not find I gave credit to the authors who discovered them. I don't think it is backstabbing as long as the proper credit is given to those who contributed to the tricks. Thus, if this run is published, Sleepz should be fully credited for his work. In fact, I believe this should be the standard for all runs.
I’m annoyed because Phil took my whole run and recopied a few frames faster. If it were Bisqwit or Genisto that submitted this run, it wouldn’t bother me as much since they both contributed. Phil didn’t contribute anything beforehand, and basically, he just ripped-off my whole run.
Btw, if it were Genisto that submitted this run, I’d be even more disappointed, since I’d expect something new and innovative from someone of his caliber.
Phil wrote:
I am not making drama because adelikat beats me at Punch Out or WalkerBoh beats me by 5 frames at Circus Charlie or even SMB1 that is 1 frame faster than me.
Is it seriously that fun re-doing a whole run to improve by frames? Do those few frames make the run more entertaining or more enjoyable to watch in some way?
This is exactly what I’m talking about. When this site was still new, it felt like the goal was to make cool, entertaining videos and showing off new tricks and glitches. Now, it seems TAS makers only care about shaving off frames here and there, and doing plain old run-throughs of game x. This has been my thoughts for sometime, and it’s only now that I’m bringing it up. I’m not trying to discourage perfection. I just think that scavenging a run for frames is a lame reason for making a TAS.
Phil wrote:
Yes but Sleepz could have posted his new trick in SMB2 thread to tell Genisto about this.
In fact, in my video there's more than 1 new trick but most of them makes only 1-2 frames faster. They aren't evident to notice for viewers.
I didn’t want to mention it because I wanted it to be a surprise. A video is a lot more entertaining to watch when it’s full of surprises, and gives people something to look forward to in a new run. That’s why I don’t like releasing WIPs. I would only do that if it was a game I was less familiar with.
KaitouKid wrote:
The goal of this site, unless Bis changed it when I wasn't looking, was to present the most flawless run of Game X possible while making it as entertaining as you can. If doesn't matter how many seconds or frames New Version is in comparison to Last Version - if it beats the previous run, it should replace the previous run unless there are glaring flaws in it somewhere.
The goal isn’t perfection. The goal is creating art and entertainment. It says so right there, clear as day in the How And Why page. Where are you people getting these ideas from? Perfection is just expected of us because were using savestates and slowdowns. It’s not like you can achieve that perfection anyways; every TAS ever created can always be improved by frames. That why its referred to as the Theoretical Fastest Time, because you’ll never be 100% certain.
Deviance wrote:
I don't think it is backstabbing as long as the proper credit is given to those who contributed to the tricks. Thus, if this run is published, Sleepz should be fully credited for his work. In fact, I believe this should be the standard for all runs.
I agree with you there, that’s why I was also wondering how come my LoZ run was properly credited with SleepzTeam, Sleepz, Mfried, and Ramzi, where as Phil’s run just says Phil Cote, with no other names.
Hey yeah! The video should be as fast as we THINK it can be! If someone has a faster version, then we should put it up, because it's not fair to the viewers to show them a video with obvious room for improvement! Right????
put yourself in my rocketpack if that poochie is one outrageous dude
Funny, I thought sloppy runs weren't allowed.
Get the fucking hair out of your ass and stop your god damn whining already. Christ. People like you make me wholly embarassed to be a part of this community. -.-
If the goal isn't perfection then what the hell am I doing here? The goal is perfection, and you try to make it artistic and entertaining as well.
Other way around hopper. The goal is to be entertaining and artistic, and you try for perfection.
KaitouKid wrote:
Funny, I thought sloppy runs weren't allowed.
Get the fucking hair out of your ass and stop your god damn whining already. Christ. People like you make me wholly embarassed to be a part of this community. -.-
I was part of this community and making runs long before you showed up, so I wouldn't talk.
KaitouKid wrote:
And remember kids: Arguing on the internet is like competing in the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you're still retarded.
.
Yeah, maybe they should stop giving the gold medal to the fastest runners and the highest scoring teams and award prizes for most entertaining run and most artistic passing. I mean, why bother going for perfection? Why should we accept the fastest time if the second fastest time was pretty good? Sorry USA, we're awarding the women's 1000m butterfly record to Russia because their swimmers are hotter. Nice swim, though. That was the fastest swim ever. You were one boob job from getting the gold.
TASing or playing back a DOS game? Make sure your files match the archive at RGB Classic Games.
If all we cared about was the record times, my site could be accomplished without single image or AVI file for download.
All we would need is numbers, and the FCM files for proof.
http://tasvideos.org/Guidelines.html
The reason I created the site in the first place was to provide a place for downloading entertaining game videos. Later, I specialized it for tool-assisted movies.
But seriously, this is off-topic.
The issue at hand is not whether this movie is faster than it is entertaining.
Speed is entertaining. Frame Battles are not.
This argument is similar to what started in the competition over NES Track and Field. For those of you who were not here when it happened, you can check it out here: http://tasvideos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=218
It was established then that this site is not an ego collection and that speed does not come before entertainment. I still vote yes here though, provided that sleepz gets credit.
Amen, Deviance. This is not an ego collection. Don't worry about hurting someone's feelings or loyalty to previous authors or philosophical differences or religious beliefs or sexual orientation or preference for Pepsi or Coke. Judge the movie for what it is, regardless of sleepz's movie.
TASing or playing back a DOS game? Make sure your files match the archive at RGB Classic Games.
Yeah, maybe they should stop giving the gold medal to the fastest runners and the highest scoring teams and award prizes for most entertaining run and most artistic passing. I mean, why bother going for perfection? Why should we accept the fastest time if the second fastest time was pretty good? Sorry USA, we're awarding the women's 1000m butterfly record to Russia because their swimmers are hotter. Nice swim, though. That was the fastest swim ever. You were one boob job from getting the gold.
Hopper, I'm going to make a new SMB3 run. It's going to be 1 or 2 frames faster, but I'm going to refrain from doing any of the 99 lives canonball jumps. It should defintely replace the previous run, being a frame or two faster and all. Faster is better, right? So I'm going to totally omit the highlight of SMB3 TAS for this one frame. Would you accept that?
And yes, Deviance, I remember that arguement. I thought it was pretty rediculous trying to replace an aethetics run. Arc let everyone know he was doing that game also.
I think I mentioned that we're also trying to be artistic and entertaining. If you were to beat the record by one frame but it was less entertaining, people would probably ask you to try again. As Bisqwit says, that's off topic. Is Phil's run less entertaining than the current run? Pretty much couldn't be, since it's the same, right? So, it's entertaining and 36 frames faster. I think that meets all of the necessary criteria. Yes vote.
TASing or playing back a DOS game? Make sure your files match the archive at RGB Classic Games.
Maybe the 36 frames of improvement was done to purposely start this argument, and in that case can be classified as entertaining. Was that the genius behind it all?!
Well, it certainly succeeded in making an awful lot of people look foolish and petty. Hard to believe supposedly intelligent people care so much about 36 frames. Thank you, Phil. Just for that, you get a Yes vote.
TASing or playing back a DOS game? Make sure your files match the archive at RGB Classic Games.
