Joined: 12/25/2018
Posts: 26
Location: 🇳🇿 New Zealand
DrD2k9 wrote:
A lot, and I don't want to quote the whole thing...
I think at this point we're going to start going in circles, so I'll just say: even if we have different motivations for doing so, we ultimately have the same goals, and the same concerns about what achieving those goals may bring along the way. I think I may just be a bit too optimistic about how quickly or successfully these bridges can be built again, and I have no problem with holding back if you or anyone else feels it's moving too quickly or at risk of harming reputation any further. I just wanna see the bridges built again, so whatever security measures you feel are necessary, I have no issue with. It's not on me to decide what's best for TASVideos, I'm just stating what I hope to be possible. Yeah, maybe all of this won't lead to anything. Maybe nobody truly does want to work with TASVideos again. That would be really awful, but if that's how people feel then so be it. I just really don't think that's the case :D
A lot, and I don't want to quote the whole thing...
I think at this point we're going to start going in circles, so I'll just say: even if we have different motivations for doing so, we ultimately have the same goals, and the same concerns about what achieving those goals may bring along the way. I think I may just be a bit too optimistic about how quickly or successfully these bridges can be built again, and I have no problem with holding back if you or anyone else feels it's moving too quickly or at risk of harming reputation any further. I just wanna see the bridges built again, so whatever security measures you feel are necessary, I have no issue with. It's not on me to decide what's best for TASVideos, I'm just stating what I hope to be possible. Yeah, maybe all of this won't lead to anything. Maybe nobody truly does want to work with TASVideos again. That would be really awful, but if that's how people feel then so be it. I just really don't think that's the case :D
I think the ideas about trying to find a way to include tases that don't end at credits, ILs especially, and trying to accommodate more tases submitted from other tasing groups are good ideas. Just won't happen overnight.
I thought I'd post my thoughts as someone who doesn't, and probably never will, make a TAS, but is purely an audience member and has been for a long time (much longer than my account is old). I don't address all points, as not all points affect me.
1. Does the TASVideos audience only like or care about TASes with flashier tricks vs. raw optimisation? Furthermore, where there are dead/boring periods in a TAS, is it expected for you to keep the audience entertained at the cost of time? Put simply, do you still value entertainment more than speed?
Raw optimisation is the main draw of a TAS for me, flashy tricks and entertaining movement are appreciated flourishes most of the time. Sometimes, the main draw of a TAS is even 'just' the author's notes, either because they show the amounts of work and expertise put into it, or becuase the TAS is just too fast to follow. I also quite like the LoZ: OoT Lotads, where the entertainment value of a silly goal outweighs the 'subpar' movement, which I still find impressive. I'd rather have a fun Lotad than no TAS because it's too much effort.
2. Is TASVideos and the TASVideos audience only interested in a TAS which leads to ending screens or credits, rather than alternative game-modes? Especially those which are more popular or central to how the game is played? More importantly, why does TASVideos not have a framework for IL TASes yet? Finally, why is there not a more serious effort to do so, seeing as it leaves many games out?
I think a TAS should have an approriate ending: usually the natural one is an ending screen or credits. Some goals don't really care about the ending screen, such as max score (or max trees), in which case I think there is artistic merit in choosing another way to end the TAS. Just stopping feels a bit empty though. Most games with individual levels have an ending to the level (SMB's score count, MK's victory fanfare, etc.) which works fine. I have no opinion on the framework as an audience member.
4. Assuming an established community already exists, where popular community figures or central channels would have the means to reach more users, what do you see as the benefit in allowing the TASVideosChannel to mirror TASes on YouTube?
The main point as I see it for these communities is to reach people that might be interested in a good TAS, but do not follow ten discords just to hear if a TAS is in the works (this is me). If I see a new TAS on TASVideos, I know it's a technically sound TAS, of which a not unimportant point is that they are really possible, i.e. console verifiable, and that if only I was just a bit better at the game, I could do the exact same. This touches on point 6 a bit as well. To have a repository of TASes and a hub for all things TAS is great, but as an audience member the biggest draw of this site is the curation, and being able to find and keep up with good and fun TASes (whether speedrun, playaround, or lotad - which I don't think have a place yet).
D. I've also been thinking of potential designs for an IL framework, since that directly affects so many games (my own game included), and I would love to see that worked out
To get this out of the way, I am aware that a lot of potential features are bottlenecked by site development. I get that! After this many years though, I haven't seen this sentiment change, especially for more major things (for example, ILs), so I really want to help push the planning process.
I agree. When you look at the emulator subforums, the majority of people there are emulation devs, not site devs. I have no idea how to fix that. I'm hesitant to say "AI", since I have no idea how feasible it would be to add an entire subsection of the site by AI-assisted vibe coding. This is a huge bottleneck that won't be fixed even if everyone agrees 100% in adding that.
