Now if you see no problem with this situation and would vote Yes for every single run, you’ve lost your mind and shouldn’t even be allowed to vote.
You have no right determining who has the right to vote and who doesn't based on whether or not they agree with your opinion.
Sleepz wrote:
Seriously, if this is what TAS making is all about now, I don’t even see the point in making them anymore. Who cares about making cool videos when we can compete over who can scavenge for the most frames instead
Sleepz wrote:
... this is exactly why I’m keeping my LoZ run from the public’s eye. Someone can just rip-off your hard work, make a carbon copy of your run with a dinky little improvement to obsolete it, and claim it as their own.
If having a run obsoleted in this way gets you this annoyed, then don't submit anymore. Problem solved. Competition in this way is inherently part of making a TAS, whether you think it should be or not.
Warning - the rest of this post is my opinion, which you may or may not agree with
If you truly want the kind of recognition you seem to be striving for, you should continue doing non-assisted speedruns instead of these. But be warned, if someone watches your run, rips-off your tactics, and makes a better movie, it's STILL PERFECTLY ALLOWED and all the complaining in the world won't make your slower run better, simply because you originated some of the ideas.
And as far as TASs go, I could not care less who made what movie. I don't watch the movies here with the author in mind. Sorry, but I don't. Whether Sleepz, Phil, or anyone else took the time to put together a TAS, because anyone can tell an emulator what buttons to press on what frames, it still looks just as impressive to me.
Guidelines wrote:
Play for entertainment, not for ego.
<Swordless> Go hug a tree, you vegetarian (I bet you really are one)
Well, perhaps waiting was not the right word, and looking back I probably shouldn't have said it. I only meant that if you thought it was unfair, you have the option of reclaiming the title by beating Phil by some small frame number. And if you can't, well, we have a perfect run, which is quite an accomplishment. I think this is the only way to increase the speed of a run that is so near perfection.
jxq2000 wrote:
If you truly want the kind of recognition you seem to be striving for, you should continue doing non-assisted speedruns instead of these. But be warned, if someone watches your run, rips-off your tactics, and makes a better movie, it's STILL PERFECTLY ALLOWED and all the complaining in the world won't make your slower run better, simply because you originated some of the ideas.
Sleepz has already discussed this
Sleepz wrote:
For those of you who keep up with human speedruns, this is exactly why I’m keeping my LoZ run from the public’s eye. Someone can just rip-off your hard work, make a carbon copy of your run with a dinky little improvement to obsolete it, and claim it as their own.
Joined: 4/21/2004
Posts: 3517
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Phil wrote:
AngerFist wrote:
Phil wrote:
It's pointless. Jealous
Jealous? Now I wish I could withdraw my yes vote... I voted yes in order for sleepz's run would still be online.
If telling the thruth makes you ANGERy then I will help you by voting no. Well, maybe envious is more appropriate.
You damn right it makes me ANGRY! Do you actually think Sleepz is jealous or envy your run? Give me a break, and what co-admin says that kind of crap? Well Phil obviously.
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
Joined: 4/16/2004
Posts: 1276
Location: Uppsala, Sweden
jxq2000 wrote:
Sleepz wrote:
Seriously, if this is what TAS making is all about now, I don’t even see the point in making them anymore. Who cares about making cool videos when we can compete over who can scavenge for the most frames instead
If having a run obsoleted in this way gets you this annoyed, then don't submit anymore. Problem solved. Competition in this way is inherently part of making a TAS, whether you think it should be or not.
I enjoy(ed) doing runs. But why should anyones hard work (maybe a week just to plan a route) be spoiled by someone who finds a frame of improvement and just copies the rest? It annoys me a bit, yes.
Bob, that was just a light-hearted joke reply back there. It still adds another point though.
jxq2000 wrote:
You have no right determining who has the right to vote and who doesn't based on whether or not they agree with your opinion.
Yea, maybe you don’t care if someone came and ripped-off every run on this site like in that scenario, but I think a lot of the actual TAS makers would be outraged. Maybe if you took the time to understand what my example was getting at, instead of just taking its follow-up sentence literally and by itself, you would know that I wasn’t determining rights, and you wouldn’t make such a clueless comment that defends the thief in the example. It’s a scenario that that forces people to the No side to see a different POV. Get a clue.
And for the people who just started reading these post, and maybe already getting the wrong idea, this isn’t about who beat who, or frames, or who’s name’s on, or speed vs aesthetics, etc. It’s about , ill just paste:
Sleepz wrote:
But getting away from the whole speed vs aesthetics argument and back to my original point, people shouldn’t rip-off other people’s runs unless they can do something new and actually add some of their own ideas to it. I’m sure everyone’s heard of plagiarism?
And here’s my extreme example again: I see jxq2000 already misunderstood.
Sleepz wrote:
Now here’s something to think about. From what everyone posted, many people seem to have the similar opinion of “If it’s faster(regardless of amount) and isn’t less entertaining” to be the end-all criteria for one run to obsolete another. Keeping that in mind; what if someone were to take every single run on this site, copy them move for move(so they’re no less entertaining), and bringing each one down an extra frame or two so all the new runs are now faster than the existing ones. Now if this person were to submit all these runs, would you all vote “Yes” and have every TAS maker’s run replaced? Would you all still be like, “His run’s are faster, and they aren’t any less entertaining. They’re all one frame closer to perfection, I don’t see any problem. Forget the previous run and author, just judge this one on its own merits. I vote Yes!” Then every run on the site will be replaced with a carbon copy run –1 frame, all made by the same author.
Now if you see no problem with this situation and would vote Yes for every single run, you’ve lost your mind and shouldn’t even be allowed to vote. But if you voted No because you changed your mind and think there are some exceptions to the end-all criteria, then the SMB2 situation is also an exception.
And No, Phil. I'm not jealous of your 36 frames. I think I made it clear from my very first post that frames don't interest me.
Joined: 11/22/2004
Posts: 1468
Location: Rotterdam, The Netherlands
I don't wish to put myself into this ongoing debate, but I'll tell you this: the whole paranoia that someone will take your run, your ideas and route, and obsolete it easily with one or two simple adjustments, is the exact reason why we have an official world record organisation that won't give out movies of submitted runs. An organisation I'm firmly against. This isn't for our personal gain, let's keep that in mind. We're all working on a large collaborative effort to entertain ourselves and the crowd. This run wasn't made to be a quick and dirty way to snatch Sleepz' record, it was made because the game could have been done faster.
With the Super Mario Bros movie being obsoleted by just one frame, I don't see a reason to vote no for this submission.
I don't undertsand your point Sleepz. What's wrong someone optimizes a run?
Yooohoo wake up.
IT IS NOT YOUR GAME.
There's no stealing here.
There's no one that will stop anyone to beat any runs here.
You have no rights to claim that or anyone else. So stop this scheme RIGHT NOW.
With the Super Mario Bros movie being obsoleted by just one frame, I don't see a reason to vote no for this submission.
I think I found some possible frame saving in the 2:57:34 SMB RPG run. Think I'll get some yes votes if I fix it? If not, why? If one run can be obsoleted by a frame, so can another, right? What about you Phil? Do you agree with this? And in my example, would you give the person who ripped-off everyone's run all Yes votes?
That was cool. A perfect way to see the differences. Phil doesn't jump as high and as much as Sleepz. That shy guy doesn't get stuck and Phil doesn't get hurt. It's a win win situation! >D I miss the sound though. :I
36 frames in a 3 hour movie is by far not the same as the 8 minute movie.
Why? They are just as insignificant in an 8 minute run as they are in a 3 hour run, even though everyone would agree more so for the 3 hour run. And now, the video is up so everyone can see for themselves.
I also want to ask, and I'm not accusing at this point, but is the first 20 seconds just a cut and paste from my run? They look even more similar watching them side by side than seperately. Just asking.
I also want to ask, and I'm not accusing at this point, but is the first 20 seconds just a cut and paste from my run? They look even more similar watching them side by side than seperately. Just asking.
There are only so many different ways to play it.
And I believe you know it very well that Phil doesn't need to copypaste anything from your run.
After watching this run (Thanks Dehacked!), I have to say I'll vote "yes" for this submission.
Reasons:
- It's not boring, and it's not less entertaining than the previous movie
- It's indeed faster, and frames are gained in various places
- It's not a requirement to repeat previous author's cool stunts. But it is a good idea to invent new tricks to show.
Indeed I couldn't find a complaint for this movie when judging only the movie itself.
I can easily redo the whole first 20 seconds to look much more different. It won't be that hard. The video won't be faster nor more entertaining.
Don't take my question as an offense. One problem with being too similar in the beginning is that if they've seen my video, they might close yours right away because they think they've seen it before. Same with most clips on the net.
Maybe if you took the time to understand what my example was getting at ... you wouldn’t make such a clueless comment that defends the thief in the example. It’s a scenario that that forces people to the No side to see a different POV. Get a clue. ... I see jxq2000 already misunderstood.
jxq2000 wrote:
And as far as TASs go, I could not care less who made what movie. I don't watch the movies here with the author in mind.
The phrase in bold is my response to your extreme example, which I understood, but didn't agree with. I don't feel I'm defending a "thief", and not agreeing with your ideas certainly doesn't make me "need a clue". There is no universal correct way, and the comments you are saying make me think that you are yet another person on here that thinks of their ideals and opinions as fact.
Sleepz wrote:
Now if this person were to submit all these runs, would you all vote “Yes” and have every TAS maker’s run replaced?
YES I WOULD, and so would many others who voted by the guidelines we are supposed to vote by, as opposed to considering authors. And whether or not you agree with this, or you think I've made an informed decision or not, it's still my vote, and all your extreme examples and complaining aren't going to change the way I feel. I say it should be a compliment to your run when Phil, of all people, can only find this small of an improvement. But I think it's a shame you are reacting to it like this.
[Edited by Bisqwit: Made the text less annoying to read (reduced the level of emphasis markup)]
<Swordless> Go hug a tree, you vegetarian (I bet you really are one)
At first I was going to stay out of this discussion altogether, and not even vote. But after seeing the side-by-side movie, I had to vote yes. But only in the hopes that Sleepz will still be credited in the Info section of the run, because he was still the one who originally used the most of the glitches.
From what I've read, I'm guessing the biggest issue at hand here is that this run almost seems underhanded. A lot of this could have been avoided if Phil just messaged Sleepz while he was working on the run and just said something like "Hey, I found a few ways to shave some frames off your run, and I'm going to give it a shot. Cool?" Common courtesy, respect, and sportsmanship is really all that was needed. Even when I submitted my original Rad Gravity run, and Blublu was working on his own vastly superior one, he still messaged me first, even though his was FAR better compared to mine. Waaay more than half a second.
In the end, Phil didn't revolutionize the run, just shaved a few imperfect frames from Sleepz's route. It deserves to be published, but Sleepz should still get his share of the credit for the original discoveries which made the run that fast to begin with.
