Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1408)
Joined: 5/31/2004
Posts: 1821
Derakon wrote:
Well, it's pretty clear that there should be a maximum, to avoid dilution of what a star "means". Obviously there's no point if every movie gets starred (or, less extreme, if every good movie gets starred; then it just becomes a marker of what movies one person thinks are worth watching, and we have other better ways to do that). I don't think we need to set in stone what the maximum is, though. If whoever gets appointed is handing out too many, there's plenty of ways to deal with it.
I think we agree here, just phrased it differently. I meant that I don't think that it should be restricted to a certain number as in "now no star can be added before another one is removed". Of course the number of stars shouldn't get too big, or the entire concept is lost.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1408)
Joined: 5/31/2004
Posts: 1821
mmbossman wrote:
Just make someone in charge of stars, and give them about 25 or 30 to use, and be done with it all (I agree that Bisqwit wouldn't be a good choice, due to his desire to be less involved with the site, and his generalized preference to NES games).
This might indeed be the best option. (Although I don't know if I agree on a set number of stars.)
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1408)
Joined: 5/31/2004
Posts: 1821
jimsfriend wrote:
committee is a bad idea. everyone is a worse idea.
Hmm, it's too bad... but I think you are right.
jimsfriend wrote:
why don't we scrap the star thing and have a TAS of the month or something? like "coolest tas of last 30 days" on front page, chosen by active judges, or chosen by whichever published run got the most positive attention etc. and then you could have an archive of best month movies or something. or something.
That's something quite different than stars. While I think it might be a nice idea, I think stars have their own merit. I could see it being implemented alongside stars, but not replace it. I think of stars as just something fun, something that makes the site more interesting (it can also be useful) and think it's therefore nice to have them.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1408)
Joined: 5/31/2004
Posts: 1821
(Hmm, just to get some debate started...) Before arguing about which runs should or shouldn't have stars, it is important to determine where the final decision lies on which runs have stars. As I see it, there are 3 options for this: 1 person, a select group of people, everyone.
I think (although if you disagree, please post) there is only one person who would be suitable for the "1 person" option, and that would be Bisqwit. This is how it was decided, and I think also how it is currently decided. However, after reading this thread, it's probably not an ever lasting option, so one of the two other options is needed for the longterm probably (if I'm wrong about this, please let me know). I'll list here what I think are the pro's can cons for these options:
(1) Select group:
A select group discusses which TASes should have stars. They listen and actively discuss with the entire community about this matter, but the ultimate dicision lies with the members of that group. Stars that are assigned also get a motivation for why this particular run got a star (maybe this motivation should be in a column at the list of starred movies). This will probably give a pretty good list, but a problem might be people not agreeing with, or on who are the group members. I'd say there are two options for forming such a group. Either, (1a) maybe after a discussion about it at the forum, Bisqwit ultimately decides on it, or, (1b) after some discussion about it there is a poll about which nominees should be on it, going by popular vote.
(2) Everyone:
This won't give any problems on who gets to have a say in it obviously. And there should obviously be some debate about the stars also... but ultimately deciding it can't really come through debating, since there will always be people who disagree, and not one person (or group) can say in the end "this is gonna be it"... since then it would basically be option (1). The only way to ultimately decide is going it through polls. This does give clear, undebateble results, but it probably would give a very well balanced list (although maybe some selection method for polling can be suggested).
If there are any other good options (maybe more exotic), let them know.
(Also, I know that this post is very similar to moozooh's post. I suggest to also read that post... but I felt like making another post about it, since this should probably be discussed before debating about actual stars.)
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1408)
Joined: 5/31/2004
Posts: 1821
Yeah, it was a pretty nice article.
Ferret Warlord wrote:
Not too bad an article, if a little outdated (Deign is the current Megaman record holder). Any idea if this will appear in the print magazine?
It never says Deign isn't. It just said that Bisqwit was most proud of his TAS work on Mega Man.
Edit: it also says that Bisqwit holds 2 current records... which is true (and thus not outdated).
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1408)
Joined: 5/31/2004
Posts: 1821
mz wrote:
Baxter wrote:
In the end, I think the idea of having such a list might be cool, but we already have such a list. The current ranking system assigns scores to your TASes according to their ratings, in a fair way.
I have some problems with that list: most people don't even know it exists and it's not a lot of fun. This list also aims to provide fun to TASers, with this points race running throughout the year.
Well, I meant it would be very possible to use that system to implement your idea of having something ongoing the entire year also. It is virtually the same (it gives points for TASes published), it just decides it on other grounds (a runs rating instead of whether it's a large improvement or new game).
mz wrote:
This list aims to generate more variety for the site; it doesn't take into account if it took a lot of effort to make or not. What I really want (and hopefully other people want this too) is having new material and not even more Metroid/Mario/Zelda/Megaman movies with only small improvements.
Well, I would have a problem with this (it not depending on effort, or entertainment). And I was talking about possible improvements to all movies on the site, not in particular those popular titles. I just used megaman as an example of a run that would be a lot of work, for only very few points in your system.
I personally don't think that people will, because of the existence of a list like this think "Hmm, I want to score points, lets TAS a SMS game". I think people will TAS games that they like in the end anyway.
Edit: btw, the link you posted lists Saturn as TASer of 2004, while it should be Phil. Either way, with your system, I don't know if the term "world nr 1 TASer" is appropriate, if it only focusses on providing a bigger variety.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1408)
Joined: 5/31/2004
Posts: 1821
Interesting idea, but there are quite a few things I don't like about it. The main thing is that it doesn't take into account even the slightest how much effort was put into a TAS. A short new SMS run would get massive amounts of points, while for instance an improvement of a big NES game (lets say Mega Man) would get little to no points.
This example basically has a lot of different complaints in it, for instance, preferring some systems over others, preferring new runs, preferring large improvements, and so on. In the end, they all don't make any sense at all. An improvement which improves it by frames could have taken huge effort, optimizing lag and luck... while in other cases, minutes are shaved off of a TAS by just a new glitch or route.
In the end, I think the idea of having such a list might be cool, but we already have such a list. The current ranking system assigns scores to your TASes according to their ratings, in a fair way. There wouldn't need to be anything new implemented... just something that keeps up seperately with these scores for each year, besides the overall score.
/Offtopic (@Bisqwit)
It might be interesting if these ranking scores were like determined at a certain time each day, and that at the end of the year we would have graphs for each players scores. Wouldn't that be cool?
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1408)
Joined: 5/31/2004
Posts: 1821
Kirkq wrote:
I honestly think somewhat popular material is better suited, but that's just me.
Well, there is a lot of popular material suited... but I've heard quite often someone saying they would have never watched a certain movie if it didn't have a star, and they really loved it. It might not be the purpose of a star, but it certainly provides a chance to put some extra attention on some unknown gems. Some of these TASes are very entertaining, even if you aren't familiar with the game.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1408)
Joined: 5/31/2004
Posts: 1821
stickyman05 wrote:
Baxter wrote:
In his first post at this topic, Comicalflop wrote:
Movies that can be improved shouldn't have star
I really disagree with this.
I really agree with baxter. JXQ's 100% Super Metroid has been obsoleted (I believe), yet that is one of the most entertaining runs I have seen to date... and I have never played SM!
Hmm, I said I it didn't matter if starred movies could be improved. I don't think I'm really in favor of giving stars to movies that actually have been improved (obsoleted).
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1408)
Joined: 5/31/2004
Posts: 1821
Bisqwit wrote:
Kuwaga wrote:
Oh, you can never know, but you can think you know.
If you think you can know, then it's because you believe in something in the first place, but on what basis?
Oh, you seem to be a follower of the "the entire universe might just be an illusion and nothing really exists at all, but you can never know" principle. I'm not willing to go further that path.
(I'm sorry if I skipped an intermediate step or two. I'll explain. You're in effect trying to refute subjective experiences. But subjective experiences are all that we have. Our entire perception of the world is just a subjective experience through our senses. By making subjective experiences in general an issue of doubt, you're in effect doubting the existence of the whole universe.)
I don't think dat Kuwaga would say that he isn't sure that you (Bisqwit) exist. If he posts something, he gets a response. He could go and visit you, and directly talk to you, and even touch you. I think that's enough for him to objectively conclude that you exist. I think his point is that the same cannot be said about God.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1408)
Joined: 5/31/2004
Posts: 1821
In his first post at this topic, Comicalflop wrote:
Movies that can be improved shouldn't have star
I really disagree with this. Besides the fact that virtually every movie can be improved, it being improvable doesn't really change the movie. It is not possible to constantly remove stars if an improvement was found, or if someone is working on an improvement, and then later, when the improvement it made, the improved movie would have to 'fight' again for its star. A movie that is known to be improvable can still provide loads of entertainment, and can still be very optimally played (just might not have used the latest glitch)... it can still be starworthy in every way. A known to be improvable movie with a star maybe gets people motivated to actually do some TASing ;)
moozooh wrote:
2. A small (ideally 7-10) group of people.
I somehow like this option, since it would seem that this way some people who are interested in it will be able to create, and keep an up to date list. I do think that also in this option, these people should be very open to other peoples opinions. Such a group could either be assigned by Bisqwit, or by popular vote.
Truncated wrote:
Here is a funny (maybe?) idea: give stars to movies based on user votes. Which voters affect the star ranking is unknown to both themselves and other users. Bisqwit selects which voters contributes to the star ranking, but cannot elect himself.
A very funny idea indeed! Unfortunately, and while very interesting, there are a lot of reasons why I don't like it, and why I think it shouldn't be implemented. I don't think that stars should be determined by votes. A single good argument given why a certain run should have a star means more than a lot of random votes. I think stars should be determined on good reasons, and not by votes. A vote doesn't say very much. I would also be bothered by the fact that I would carefully watch a movie, and give my judgement on something, and I would never know if my opinion ever mattered... that sounds like a nightmare to me. Also, (and I don't mean this as a serious objection, since I do trust Bisqwit), technically Bisqwit could virtually decide which movies get stars, just by selecting the right people.
klmz wrote:
Yes. However, it's one of the few movies that can be considered "(nearly) perfect", which is TAS-unique.
I think the fact that one can somewhat say that SMB is (nearly) perfect is a good reason not to give it a star. If most of the game is like an autoscroller, and the end of the stages have horrible frame rules, if the game has no lag, and little to no luckmanipulation, then yeah, it might be closer to perfection than other runs... but imo therefore not necessarily more interesting. I would say this could be a reason not to give it a star.
Don't get me wrong. I love your TASes... but I think for instance your Little Samson TAS would be far better suited for a star than SMB1.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1408)
Joined: 5/31/2004
Posts: 1821
Yeah, I agree with jupi... it would be stupid to boot movies, just because they were published some time ago, they can still be as great (or possibly even greater) than recent movies.
I was somewhat surprised to find that SMB1 had a star.
I think points made by moozooh in the previous thread are pretty good:
moozooh wrote:
The reason why I don't think giving SMB a star makes sense is:
1) it's going to be checked among the first hits, anyway;
2) the TAS is only a couple seconds faster than the fastest unassisted run — hardly a WOWAWESOME thing. Tool-assistance is not very prominent there, at least not for a first-timer.
Stars might not be intended to be for first-timers anymore, but prodominence of tool-assistence should still be important I think. The point has also been made that it's not extremely audiovisually attractive (and I'll provide the complete quote, not to pull it out of context):
Bisqwit wrote:
It is desirable that all those factors are met, but if some of the factors are fulfilled especially well, a lack in some other factors can be accepted. (SMB1 for example isn't audiovisually very attractive.)
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1408)
Joined: 5/31/2004
Posts: 1821
It looks very nice :). It's also nice that the latest submissions are also visible at the front page. It is a pity that the movies that were obsoleted by the new publications aren't listed anymore though. It made it both possible to see if the movie is an improvement, or a whole new run, and if it's an improvement by how much it was improved.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1408)
Joined: 5/31/2004
Posts: 1821
Xkeeper wrote:
I could honestly not give any less of a shit if the game has 5,000 categories as long as other runs are still being produced. Seriously, what's the big fucking deal?
I do give a shit if some new runs of original games get rejected because only 2/3 of the people enjoy it, while one would be 100% sure of publication if you just make another Super Metroid movie, no matter how similar it is to what's already there.
Darkdata wrote:
I am in agreement. I mean, you said it yourself: "Therefore, every goal you set will produce an entertaining movie"
Yeah, and a "saves the animals" run at the end will be just as entertaining as a Super Metroid run that doesn't. A 99% run would also be entertaining. The problem is that it's just more of the same, with only minor tweaks. Do you think the "Luigi"-SMB run was that less entertaining than the normal run (the run where 2 players are selected, mario runs into goomba, and the the game is completed as luigi). You can't argue that it's really less entertaining than the regular run... but the goals are just getting rediculous, and there isn't enough new stuff.
superjupi wrote:
I really don't mind the number of categories for any particular game, as long as the goals are clearly defined and adhered to, and the goals themselves give way to entertaining results.
Well, I don't mind the number of categories if all runs are significantly different.
superjupi wrote:
If you disapprove of new categories purely because they are not the bland and unoriginal fast as possible with no other goals, then don't watch, the movie's not for you.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1408)
Joined: 5/31/2004
Posts: 1821
Well, I can only give my opinion, but I think there is something similar in both examples you mentioned:
1) It are very popular games
2) It is a non-regular category
- If the games (or TASes) weren't popular, the non-regular category would be rejected a lot faster.
- If it's a regular category, there is no problem, certainly not if it's a popular game.
--------------------------------
In these particular cases, the OoT run has been accepted for quite some time... the wait is only for someone to encode it. I think accepting it was a very good choice, since it's shows of lots and lots of stuff the any% run doesn't, and at the same time, a true 100% run would only add lots and lots of boring things. So there are still the regular 2 version: an any% and a full version (though not 100%) (I think the goals in this case were as good as they would get).
For Super Metroid, it's a popular game that's pretty suited for TASing. Therefore, every goal you set will produce an entertaining movie... and therefore it gets good votes, no matter how rediculous the goals become. There are 4 published runs now, and a fifth category in submission. If it were up to me, an any%, and a 100% run are enough (2 runs). The other runs are just more of the same, with minor tweaks, which aren't even noticed probably by most viewers. I am very much against adding yet another category for this game.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1408)
Joined: 5/31/2004
Posts: 1821
Saturn wrote:
Apo123 wrote:
While I have to say your run is only known to be improvable by 15 seconds RIGHT NOW, historically some new trick or something will pop up and will allow this run to be obsoleted by several minutes.
Never. Trust me, there is nothing left this time that could obsolete it by whole minutes. It would only be possible with significant gamebreaking glitches that allow you to do major skips, but then again, it wouldn't be a glitchless, legit run like this one. 0:27 is the limit here, ask anybody who knows at least a bit about Super Metroid, they will tell you the same thing.
Sounds like you defined "legit run" just to fit exactly your own (arbitrary) goals. This run isn't a glitchless run either... it only doesn't use glitches you don't like, and define this as "legit". It's pretty easy to predict no major improvements can me made, since every major improvement wouldn't be what you define as "legit".
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1408)
Joined: 5/31/2004
Posts: 1821
Saturn wrote:
As for the category, it shouldn't necessary be added to the main movies, but it would certainly fit in the concept demo section, like all the other special runs there.
It says: "Movies of hacked games and other demonstrations". Which of the demonstrations do you think this run is similar to? (I kinda assume you think it's similar in at least one aspect, since you think it fits in.)
I think it being such a somewhat arbitrary category isn't being helped by the fact that this is the only game which already has 4 published movies. The fact that the movie isn't perfect shouldn't be the reason for rejection... quite a lot of effort was put into it, and it is of good quality, but isn't helping either... movies have been rejected for as little as a few frames of possible improvement.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1408)
Joined: 5/31/2004
Posts: 1821
Zugzwang wrote:
Yay. On positive note, I can confirm what I thought about 8-5. Sorry Baxter beat you to it! By doing the second half of the level identical to before but the begining with the up-dodge fot the knife guy it saves 1 step. It also saves a little more time because I dont have to wait for the knife men to pass when pushing against them.
The Current TAS is 177+ to the chest this is 172
now a 5+ step improvement
The total now is -14 3/4+ steps
This video I took at 4am. My wife woke up to ask me what I was still doing awake. HA, so I kept some of the attempts because of the silly comentary we had. Yes... I might be crazy. The improvement is the last take. Enjoy!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78sRPY8NwTU
Wow, very nice (and very funny movie too :)! Seeing it being played in realtime, and seeing some errors, and then success has a certain charm to it. Very impressive that you keep finding improvements in realtime, although it does make me think every time how much easier you could have made it for yourself using an emulator (and frame advance+rerecords).
I'm really sorry I haven't had the time to look into it yet... but I'll be sure to post whatever I find, or even if I would have a finished version of the TAS, here first before submitting.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1408)
Joined: 5/31/2004
Posts: 1821
I think there are already too many Metroid publications out there. I think it's strange that two of the runs are done that allow some glitches, and don't allow one other glitch... and I've never been a fan of ingame timer anyway.
Either way, the goals of this run sound even more random. Of course this run might show some interesting things to some people who know the game really well... but I think most games have fun stuff that could be shown off in a TAS, but which cannot be included in the actual TAS. While in most games there is no room for an additional run that shows off this stuff, this game already has 2 such additional runs.
It's a popular game, and of course people will like it... but I don't think it should be the fifth (or in fact, that there should be a fifth) category for Super Metroid... so I'm against publication.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1408)
Joined: 5/31/2004
Posts: 1821
Xkeeper wrote:
Baxter wrote:
This is close to what you are looking for I think.
this is me wrote:
the "recent additions" only goes back to 19/4/2004 or 4/19/2004 for my fellow americans
my first visit was roughly 3 weeks before then
is there a way to view a chronological sorting of publications back to #1?
Facepalm.
Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be a way to view them past that point, so your only option seems to be manually going to URLs and going from there.
I guess I didn't read carefully enough, but still:
this is me wrote:
i was curious as to what movie was published the day i first visited here but the "recent additions" only goes back to...
Reading that, I assumed he only was looking at the recent additions... oh well.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1408)
Joined: 5/31/2004
Posts: 1821
Bisqwit wrote:
Unless a better solution emerges, the starred movies mechanism will be using the same method as earlier, i.e. admin picks & inheritance.
Sounds like an ok option, as long as the list is kept up to date, and there is a discussion thread about it, where opinions, ideas and suggestions are (at least) noted.
Bisqwit wrote:
Maybe a poll will be created for the desired mechanism of how stars are granted, similarly to how was done with the submission feedback system.
Although I don't think that the most popular mechanism should particularly be picked, this might be a good way to get some ideas for possible other mechanisms.
