Joined: 6/28/2004
Posts: 219
Location: Raccoon City
does anyone have a screenshot or an html file of what http://tasvideos.org/ looked like roughly a year ago?
the site that was just a single page with a list of no more than 50 games with speed runs.
Joined: 8/1/2004
Posts: 2687
Location: Seattle, WA
A year ago, the site was roughly like what looking at the index of published NES movies looks like now. Except there were like 50 different ways to sort through them.
But no, no pictures. I remember it pretty vividly, from when I first arrived.
when I first visited the site, it was one page with about half a dozen or so runs including an unfinished MM3 run by bisqwit. There was no forum at that time. I didn't take a screenshot though, because I had no idea the site would grow to be what it is today.
http://bisqwit.iki.fi/jutut/nesv-old/
This is what the site looked like 13 months ago!
(Nope, it hasn't been always in that address. I just resurrected it from backups. Some features might be missing.)
I'm afraid I don't have any older backups, containing nesvideos.html.
Deviance wrote:
Joined: 4/21/2004
Posts: 3517
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
WOW! I remember that! To think how much this site has developed and gotten sooo much better 0_o
Nitrogenesis wrote:
Guys I come from the DidyKnogRacist communite, and you are all wrong, tihs is the run of the mileniun and everyone who says otherwise dosnt know any bater! I found this run vary ease to masturbate too!!!! Don't fuck with me, I know this game so that mean I'm always right!StupedfackincommunityTASVideoz!!!!!!
Arc wrote:
I enjoyed this movie in which hands firmly gripping a shaft lead to balls deep in multiple holes.
natt wrote:
I don't want to get involved in this discussion, but as a point of fact C# is literally the first goddamn thing on that fucking page you linked did you even fucking read it
Cooljay wrote:
Mayor Haggar and Cody are such nice people for the community. Metro City's hospitals reached an all time new record of incoming patients due to their great efforts :P
Humm...I'm not sure if I remember how I found this site. I think it was when I was looking for a english-to-japanese translator and I found this site on google and noticed the NES Videos section, browsed and fell in love. Only movies that were up then were SMB1, SMB3, Gradius and the Rockman's...I think. *looks at link Bisqwit posted* Probably that Youkai thing too. :D
I guess it's been well over a year for me...
wow... i still remember being at school and being pissed off cause it said i needed BitTorrent to DL those... hahaha.
i got here from SDA (looking for a cinematic video before Ridley v Samus in MP), then Arc's (which i relied on for a LONG time) and then eventually moved here. what nostalgia indeed.
I remember what it was like, because I'd been bumming around here for over a year now, when I first saw the address. I can safely say that I've seen every AVI movie on this site except for the Zanac movie (because I don't feel like using Famtasia right now). Unfortunately, I have not a screenshot.
I thought it was the most awesome thing since sliced bread. And I still think this place is. So this site and David Wonn's site, where I have a bunch of glitches submitted there (and I even still keep in touch with Mr. Wonn himself on occasion over IM. =P), are the most awesome sites on the Web, period.
By the way, unrelated, but if you're looking for stuff I've submitted on David Wonn's site, look for the name Rick L or Rick (Lickichu). I believe you'll see one of the glitches I've submitted is used in the Mega Man X speed run on this site, which makes me feel proud and worthy, for some reason. ^_^
Joined: 10/27/2004
Posts: 1977
Location: Making an escape
My first time was much like Zurreco's where the page had a few dozen methods of sorting through the movies. I liked that because it allowed you to find a movie that might be to your liking.
It'll be interesting to see how this place changes over the next two years. It'll be a nice surprise for me because I'll be gone for much of that time.
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.
Are you talking about this page?
http://tasvideos.org/MovieSearch.html
It was once on the Movies.html page, but I removed it because people linked to that page and I wanted them to link to the front page...
Which reminds me of one thing:
As far as I know, many of the categories awarded to the movies are done so more or less automatically just because the author claims in his submission that the movie belongs to that category. That is, the one who publishes the submission usually makes no effort to check the validity of the categories. In other words, categories are awarded way too loosely, lessening their usefulness.
With some categories this isn't a problem, of course. For example, most of the genre categories are probably ok and there's little to check there.
However, some categories are awarded, in my opinion, too easily to any movie which the author claims it to belong to. One example of this is the "manipulates luck" category.
That is one category which I think should have a much tighter definition. If the definition is too loose then practically all movies where (pseudo)random things happen belong to that category. This would include the majority of movies.
I think that this category should mean that luck manipulation is such an important and drastic thing that without it the movie would be twice longer or whatever. Luck manipulation should also be clear to the viewer, especially if we assume the viewer has played the game. The castlevania 2 movie is a great example of this: Each monster kill gives a heart, even though in regular play this happens a lot more rarely. If one has played the game one immediately sees that luck is being strongly manipulated and that it is saving huge amounts of time (because collecting a certain number of hearts is mandatory).
If the "luck manipulation" in a video means that the position of a monster is manipulated so that the run will be 0.1 seconds faster, in my opinion it's not enough to deserve the category. The luck manipulation should be very obvious and save huge amounts of time.
Another category which should be deserved and not granted too loosely is "abuses programming errors". There are probably other similar categories as well.
I wonder if it would be a good idea for someone to go through the movies and their author descriptions and revise whether the awarded categories are really fit. I think this should be done before a search capability is added to the site or else category search would be much less useful. (If I'm searching for "manipulates luck" videos I expect to find clear examples of this, not videos which save 0.1 seconds by "manipulating luck".)
I found the site while looking for Morimoto's famous SMB3 run (and not being able to read the Japanese on his site), only to find that there was an even faster run here.
TASing or playing back a DOS game? Make sure your files match the archive at RGB Classic Games.
>As far as I know, many of the categories awarded to the movies are done so more or less automatically just because the author claims in his submission that the movie belongs to that category.
I actually wanted to remove the text about not all movies being properly categorized yet yada yada, because in my opinion they are. I check all the categories for the new movies and I think all the old ones have been seen enough times so that it's bound to be reasonably correct.
In my opinion the only realistic cut-off point for inclusion in a category is at zero. Just like with taking damage and using death to save time. Otherwise it will just turn into a constant bickering about how much luck a movie must abuse to be included and if this or that game should or shouldn't count. The only realistically enforceable criteria is luck / no luck.
(If I'm searching for "manipulates luck" videos I expect to find clear examples of this, not videos which save 0.1 seconds by "manipulating luck".)
Maybe there could be some way for any categories that really define the movie to be emphasized, and a category search could be made to only match runs that have that category emphasized.
In my opinion the only realistic cut-off point for inclusion in a category is at zero. Just like with taking damage and using death to save time. Otherwise it will just turn into a constant bickering about how much luck a movie must abuse to be included and if this or that game should or shouldn't count. The only realistically enforceable criteria is luck / no luck.
I disagree. If the the "cut-off point" is zero, then the category becomes useless and uninteresting. Ok, the player takes damage and saves 2 frames because of that? So what? It doesn't make the video more interesting to watch. It certainly isn't something I expect when I search for movies which truely take damage to save time. The same with luck manipulation and abusing bugs.
We don't need to go to a point where we accurately specify, in a techincal way, how much is "enough to deserve the category" (eg. by percentages or whatever). It can simply be a question of judgement. The publisher can use his own judgement and award the category if it really deserves it. Some guidelines can be given for these "judges".
If I watch a video which "abuses luck" or whatever, I expect it to be clear and cool and enjoyable (at least if I know the game and have played it).
If not, then "abuses luck" becomes as uninteresting as "the video is 1028 frames long". It's just a technical detail with no real value.
>I disagree. If the the "cut-off point" is zero, then the category becomes useless and uninteresting. Ok, the player takes damage and saves 2 frames because of that? So what? It doesn't make the video more interesting to watch. It certainly isn't something I expect when I search for movies which truely take damage to save time. The same with luck manipulation and abusing bugs.
If taking damage only saves 2 frames in a run, I think most players here would just skip taking damage altogether. But that's not really important to the point here.
If we do allow movies to take just a little damage here and there but still label them as takes no damage, I think we would get complaints very quickly.
I know we won't start specifying how much damage you have to take / luck you have to abuse before you deserve the category because that's rather impossible. And if we instead leave it to the judges (or all the editors who also are able to change categories), even if we are given guidelines, I think we will have a big mess in no time because everyone's idea of what is "enough" doesn't match.
Do you feel the same way about dying only a few times and using a restart sequence only once? How about killing just two or three enemies in a pacifist run? It doesn't make sense to me having categories with loose definitions.
Emulator Coder, Site Developer, Site Owner, Expert player
(3599)
Joined: 11/3/2004
Posts: 4739
Location: Tennessee
i see your point warp, in that ALL tas's manipulate luck. any decent game has the element of luck (hell even the AI in battle chess can be manipulate into error) so its a meaningless category. It can be assumed with the label "TAS"
how about dumping the category all togethor and have a category such as "manipulates drops" or "manipulates random items" for games like castlevania, mm1, RPG's, etc?
If we do allow movies to take just a little damage here and there but still label them as takes no damage, I think we would get complaints very quickly.
You are assuming that movies can be categorized just into two: Takes damage to save time or does not take damage. Not true. If a video is uncategorized in this respect then it may or may not take damage, but that fact is not of big relevance.
So, if a video does not have a category related to damage, then it means that it does not use damage (or avoiding damage) for a very important effect. It may or may not take damage, but it's not a big deal. However, if the video is categorized as "takes damage to save time" then it *truely* saves significant amounts of time by taking damage. If it's categorized as "takes no damage" then it means that the game is *very* difficult to complete without taking damage, so doing so is a nice feat.
I know we won't start specifying how much damage you have to take / luck you have to abuse before you deserve the category because that's rather impossible. And if we instead leave it to the judges (or all the editors who also are able to change categories), even if we are given guidelines, I think we will have a big mess in no time because everyone's idea of what is "enough" doesn't match.
You are exaggerating. We will not get "a big mess" if people start evaluating the videos better. The site publishes about one movie per week or per two weeks or so. Judging it is not a big deal at all. On the contrary, the informational value of the categories will raise significantly.
Do you feel the same way about dying only a few times and using a restart sequence only once? How about killing just two or three enemies in a pacifist run? It doesn't make sense to me having categories with loose definitions.
Now you are just using troll tactics. There's a big difference between dying and just taking a bit of damage. You can't compare the two things. Stop being such a hairsplitter and just try to understand what I am saying. I'm sick of having to fight with people over irrelevant artificial nuances.
The site publishes about one movie per week or per two weeks or so. Judging it is not a big deal at all.
It is true we only publish a few movies per week, sometimes even less. We'd do more, but deciding which movies to accept (and especially, which ones to reject) is exactly the "big deal" you think it isn't.
Since you brought it up, I think that giving some people rejecting priviliges (as Truncated has suggested before) would be a good idea. The "rejectors" should have high standards and not be afraid to reject submissions that have been lingering in the queue for 8 months without receiving many votes. We get so many high-quality submissions these days that we can afford to reject the fifty-fifty ones.
I do understand what you are trying to say, I'm just saying it's not a very good idea.
Today we have another such loose category - the stars - and there is certainly a lot of differing opinions about which movies meet the standard to be included and which ones don't. (There is more prestige in this category of course but I think it's a relevant example anyway.)
You don't seem to like having this discussion, so I will stop now. I think I voiced my concerns clearly enough already.
Maybe I'm taking this out of context, but I think the judging is a big deal. In order to vote, you have to watch the video. Lazy and sedentary as I am, I have to set aside time to watch a 30+ minute TAS. I had to watch Super Mario RPG in more than one sitting. Judging takes a lot of time just for an idiot like me. People who are pros need even longer to dissect each section, looking for improvements. Although a movie can be published without many votes if it clearly makes the grade (usually by improving on an existing one), it often takes dozens of votes for there to be a clear consensus. Unless a movie looks perfect, or mind-bogglingly good, there usually has to be a lengthy discussion about it which can take days or weeks. It's amazing just how big a deal it really is.
TASing or playing back a DOS game? Make sure your files match the archive at RGB Classic Games.
