Thanks to ducksandfish, I've just had a chance to watch this.
I actually think the close-ups worked well when Mario was moving slowly - at the start of the first and 2nd stages particularly - there isn't much in the way of 'skipped routes' or far-away stuff to look at in those 2 sections, so a close-up just makes it more obvious what Mario's up to - always nice.
I'm just some random guy. Don't let my words get you riled - I have my opinions but they're only mine.
Incredible.
I'm no expert, but even to me, the entry to the first bowser stage, end of 1st bowser stage and middle of 2nd looked WAY faster.
I liked how after the first bowser battle, the red cap looked like a bloody nose.
The camera angles were great - specially when sorta clipping the right of the grey block in stage 2, going up the main steps at the end and during the final battle.
My favourite TAS just got better.
I'm just some random guy. Don't let my words get you riled - I have my opinions but they're only mine.
I spent half an hour navigating through the site yesterday evening, trying to find a list of the 'highest rated' movies.
I vaguely remember seeing a page of stats (e.g. shortest movie, most re-records etc.) and thought it might be included but I couldn't even find that aforementioned page.
Any help or links would be much appreciated.
Sorry for my ineptitude.
I'm just some random guy. Don't let my words get you riled - I have my opinions but they're only mine.
oh one question btw... do ppl think i should try to collect as many continues as possible with the slot-machine (i.e. same result every time, might look boring after a while?) or vary the results a bit?
Variance is interesting.
Or maybe get a stupid number of coins? Doubling seems like it'd get hilariously ridiculous fairly fast. And since it's doubling, we'd see an acceleration of numbers, which I find cool to watch.
I'm just some random guy. Don't let my words get you riled - I have my opinions but they're only mine.
Maybe the description could read, "The technical quality of this movie (how technically impressive it is, techniques used, etc.)"
Warp wrote:
Bezman wrote:
What if voting on the technical rating was made optional?
That might encourage more rating, certainly.
I think - in my case though - I should maybe just kinda have confidence in my judgement more. Specially if going by Warp's definition, which I like, I often do have an opinion - I'm not sure if it's valid or not.
I changed my rating for 'Castle of Illusion' - whilst I like the game and kinda enjoyed watching it, nothing seemed that far off what might be humanly possible. So I gave it a 5.
Mario Land 2 just seemed really cool with the backwards-jumping showcasing, going through blocks, hitting enemies at the last possible moment with a fireball (took me a while to work out what was going on there) and managing to land on the sides of spikes. I gave it an 8.
I'm honestly not sure - is this way of rating movies OK? I have no TASing experience so whilst I imagine that frame-precision is easier than glitch-finding like in Mario 64 or the luck-management in King's Bounty, I can only imagine. So it's a lot easier for me to just base the rating on the techniques I can see, taking the guesswork and 2nd-hand information out of it.
I would tend to give puzzle games higher technical ratings than platformers, simply because the insanely fast speed of play - whilst maybe easy when using 'frame advance' - just seems more impressive and seems like the kind of 'broken-ness' I was hoping for when I first heard about this site.
I would sorta come from a viewpoint of 'how humanly IMPOSSIBLE does the run look?'. Thinking about it, that's probably the only way I COULD rate the 'technical' rating.
I guess if you only wanted ratings from TASers, you'd have hard-coded that into the site.
If my viewpoint is OK, maybe that could be part of the description - "How humanly IMPOSSIBLE does the run look?"
I'm just some random guy. Don't let my words get you riled - I have my opinions but they're only mine.
As a viewer, I enjoy watching movies, but usually hold off on voting, since being able to fairly judge the 'technical' score feels like I need to really think about things in a way I never do and - at the bare minimum - read and at least vaguely understand the author's explanation of techniques.
If there were only one rating to hand out, I'd probably rate a lot more stuff.
Maybe that's a problem with my way of thinking, but I'm sure other casual viewers are kinda the same.
Although maybe you actively want to discourage overly casual folk from voting, since I guess folk who only rate a few things skew averages.
I'm just some random guy. Don't let my words get you riled - I have my opinions but they're only mine.
You know what would be the solution to your system? Replacing ratings with ranks. A list of n movies, where the top one is rank #1, and the bottom is rank #n. Then it all comes together perfectly, and what's more important, doesn't interfere with absolute systems. Because what your system is trying to do is bringing that relative component into what's indexed as absolute by the statistics engine.
I mentioned in the other thread that lists of 'rankings' could generate overall ratings for all the movies.
I was just starting to work out decent formula, when I realised one serious drawback - when anyone rates one additional movie, all the ratings of anything they've ranked would change - I imagine that would be kinda a weighty server-load.
I'm just some random guy. Don't let my words get you riled - I have my opinions but they're only mine.
If "most" are "above average," the average needs to be shifted. The whole idea of a relative scale is that 49.99% are above the average, 49.99% are below the average, and a few select items are right on the average.
As I tried to indicate, not everyone uses a 'relative' rating system - some use an 'absolute' rating system.
In reality, most folk use something in between the two - taking into consideration other things out there but ultimately giving a '4' to things they deem 'slightly unenjoyable' and so on.
Zurreco wrote:
The whole idea that everything we publish is above average negates the concept of an average in the first place. If we are to assume that every run published is above a 5 already, why even give the option to vote less than 5?
Some people may disagree with a published movie's worth. The scale exists for folk to express their opinion.
Is there actually any problem if not everyone uses the entire scale? I can understand that it's frustrating when your ideals don't match up with everyone else's, but maybe consider taking a step back - is it really an issue?
What would be your ideal situation? Having everyone order the movies they've seen from best to worst? (only then is a rating truly relative...)
Also bear in mind that 'casual' folk are more likely to watch movies they're interested in - those same ones that they'd rate highly.
I'm just some random guy. Don't let my words get you riled - I have my opinions but they're only mine.
I'm no 'player' but I agree with all 3 of Baxter's suggestions above.
For decimals, how about having 2 drop-down menus for each score?
Looking sorta like:
[9].[5]
Just an idea to avoid having a hundred things to scroll through. Folk who want to use integers can use the left drop-down menu only, if they wish.
Assuming the left menu contained '0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,8,9,10' and the right one ''0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,8,9', a score of 10.5 (or any number up to 10.9) could potentially be given so this'd have to be capped.
I can only guess as to how tricky this is.
For ideas of how to better explain the technical rating, how about, "The technical precision of this movie (how technically impressive it seems)"?
Just a small modification, but I don't think a massive change is needed.
I'm just some random guy. Don't let my words get you riled - I have my opinions but they're only mine.
As I have stated before: if we can extrapolate that 5 is not held as an average value for both Entertainment and Optimization, the ratings system is inherently flawed and should be abandoned.
Or, it just suggests that most TAS's are above average in quality.
Even if we take 5 to be a sort of 'base' quality, it doesn't follow that it should be the median for everything. I think there are 2 ways of using ratings - to reflect upon 'absolute quality' or 'relative quality'.
If reflecting upon 'absolute' quality, folk might ask themselves, 'how much did I enjoy this?', simply trying to give a 5 to something they felt impartial about and so on.
If considering 'relative quality', then folk would try to ensure that the mean or median rating they handed out was 5. How many people do this though? And even if they do, maybe they rate relative to more than only TASs - perhaps considering how much they enjoyed the TAS relative to a speedrun or a movie, TV show or whatever.
As long as folk EITHER rate along similar lines as many others OR rate a significant portion of movies, there isn't any problem with this as the relative scores between TASs will still be meaningful.
I'm just some random guy. Don't let my words get you riled - I have my opinions but they're only mine.
I've enjoyed the original TAS of this countless times (I literally couldn't count the number on 3 hands) and the fact that it's been improved is brilliantly ridiculous.
Looking forward to watching this.
One question though - in the chart, what's the difference between 'N/A' and 'idle'?
I guess that 'idle' is meant to indicate that nothing was being pressed on that frame, but have no clue what 'N/A' is meant to indicate in this situation. I think I'm missing something...
I'm just some random guy. Don't let my words get you riled - I have my opinions but they're only mine.
they rather ignore runs with lower ratings, which I don't think is too good
Folk are always going to pay attention to something at the expense of another.
Remove the ratings and folk will pay attention to runs based on the game, screenshot and the other info that pops up on the main list.
Of course, this 'technical' info can be opaque until we're familiar with the ins and outs of the game (and previous runs) and doesn't actually do that great a job of suggesting to us how entertaining or technically proficient the run actually is. Heck, most would just ignore all the games they're not as familiar with - that's what I would have done at any rate.
Like it or not, some things are always gonna be ignored. if it's any consolation, I think that a big fan of a particular game would watch that game's run, regardless of the rating.
And folk who put weight behind a certain user will be likely to look at their top-rated movies and watch them - it needn't be all about the aggregate.
I'm just some random guy. Don't let my words get you riled - I have my opinions but they're only mine.
I think some of you are kinda overreaching or making overly specific stuff.
Here's a suggestion/observation:
The folk who are most in need of the info are absolute beginners. Once you reach a certain level of proficiency in any field, you can explain your questions more clearly and already often know where to go for answers. By that time, you're maybe part of the community and don't feel shy about fielding those questions. I can only presume it's the same for TASing.
Maybe there's already a fair bit of info out there? In the emulator manuals, other stuff that's been written...
As a newb, what I'd really appreciate most would be some pointers to how to start. What emulator should I use? Is there a website that covers this in an informed way? Maybe just link it!
How do I start 'recording' my play-throughs, re-recording and using frame advance? If that's already eplained in the manual, maybe just link that and (if you're feeling kind) point us to the relevant sections/chapters.
If this info exists, just having it as a sort of 'recommended reading' would be really useful.
Not that I expect to do any TASing over the next year but it's certainly something I'd like to better understand. Being able to TAS a Snes well-based 'puzzle' game seems like it'd be a hoot.
I'm just some random guy. Don't let my words get you riled - I have my opinions but they're only mine.
Allows newbies to choose a starting point, based on more information, automatically assimilated?
If neither stars nor ratings existed when I arrived, I'd have just looked through the Snes games that I've already completed and probably missed a lot of gems.
I'm just some random guy. Don't let my words get you riled - I have my opinions but they're only mine.
Fair point on 'ordering of favourites'.
Maybe - if it's not incredibly hard to code in - Warp and Bisquit could have a separately derived 'favourites' list that just allows you to order a bunch of movies however you want - like on Newgrounds.
One advantage of the 2 separate rating is that folk coming to the site can weigh them however they want - they can click to see the top-rated movies for entertainment and pick those that also have reasonable technical scores. They could just watch the top-rated movies for technical scores. Just use the overall combined rating. Or any combination.
A single combined rating wouldn't be quite as useful for folk on the outside, in that sense.
I'm just some random guy. Don't let my words get you riled - I have my opinions but they're only mine.
I thought about the technical score to be an evaluation of the *techniques* used in the run.
...
Even a frame-perfect run may deserve a low technical score if it doesn't show advanced and well-executed techniques. Perhaps the game in question just doesn't lend itself to awesome techniques, but then it's simply a poor game choice.
...
I have suggested this a couple of times in the past, but always shot down. For whatever reason I cannot comprehend, people don't want this.
I can think of some possible reasons:
- it's a slightly harder system to comprehend. Though 'how close is it to perfection' is near-impossible to judge without plenty of research, it is at least a fairly simple thing to understand.
- Having the technical score be used to judge 'techniques used' rather than 'closeness to perfection' introduces a large degree of subjectivity. Since the 'entertainment' value is entirely subjective, maybe folk want a more objective score to 'balance it up'?
- If the 'technical' score is used to mean 'techniques used' then - as you say - some games may never have a submission with a perfect technical score. I think that idea could rankle with some folk.
Personally though, I like the idea of rewarding extraneous technical virtues - such as superhumanly late jumping. I like the idea that simpler games should recieve lower scores for fewer techniques being used - certainly settles Baxter's qualm.
And though I have no rationale for this, I would rather that score be slightly subjective - as your system kinda allows.
If it were purely about the perfection of speed, then really only time and the stats of this and future attempts could suggest one way or the other.
I'm just some random guy. Don't let my words get you riled - I have my opinions but they're only mine.
- the entire level can basically be skipped by flying through it, rendering the 'puzzle' and challenges null and void. Maybe having the dragon coins at ground level to encourage folk to go the 'hard route' or having a secret exit at ground level or sky-bound obstacles would work well. Or maybe ensure that none of your platforms are long enough to build up the speed to fly.
The get-out-of-puzzle free is for advanced players (or those who have already played through the level) as a means to an end from a speedrunning or short-for-time perspective. I never (with some exceptions) want the player to feel forced into a puzzle they can't or don't want to solve. Just because a certain path is the "proper" way doesn't mean it should be the only way.
But flying through it feels so unsatisfying and isn't a particularly interesting thing to do!
If there were 2 ways through the level and each had its own 'style' of challenges (e.g. maybe one needing us to fly through small gaps, the other needing somewhat precise jumping) then I could see your point. But flying as is doesn't feel like an 'alternate route' - instead, it reminds me of Rainbow Bell Adventures, in which to fly is essentially voluntarily skipping all the action.
It's not having an alternate route that I disagree with - rather, it's having one that is so uninteresting that rankles.
I think that if someone doesn't like the style of the game, rather than give them an absolute 'get out clause', just appreciate that they may not be the audience for the game.
If you want multiple routes, give each a modicum of challenge. Or use the map-screen or warp-pipes to implement multiple routes.
theenglishman wrote:
The level's been drastically changed (and some new ones have been added).
Cool! I'll look forward to checking it out!
On a slightly-related note, how did you do edits like that? Is there a tool in existence to make the job easier? Is there some FAQ, guide or other documentation that you used to help you get started? How long did your first level take you?
I'd love to give something like this a go if there's not too much coding-type-work involved.
I'm just some random guy. Don't let my words get you riled - I have my opinions but they're only mine.
I'm up to v0.6, and it supports FCM (correctly now, thanks!), FM2, GMV(no support for XYZ buttons yet), SMV, M64 (the analog stick is considered one button, either used or unused per frame), and writing out the data to a text file.
Nice work!
Because I"m on a mac, I can't try it out, but this seems like a cool widget. This might pave the way for stat lists.
I'll give this a go on the IBM-compatible sometime. Should be interesting, despite the 'dancing' that goes on sometimes.
I'm just some random guy. Don't let my words get you riled - I have my opinions but they're only mine.
Nobody said anything about any console or console game *requiring* mouse+keyboard. I only wondered why no consoles and console games offer it as an *alternative* to playing with the gamepad. If someone wants to play with the gamepad, then he is free to do so, but if someone would want to play with mouse+keyboard, why not offer him the chance?
Time and budget. The more options you include increases man-hours in development and testing. A new control system would certainly require a massive amount of increased playtesting.
And remember one big disadvantage of PC inputs - they require a flat surface in front of you. When I play console games, I like to sit on a bed, on a couch or similar. A controller allows more body movement. and doesn't need me to hunch over something.
Mouse & keyboard are probably the 'optimal' combo, but not necessarily the most fun or practical.
I'm just some random guy. Don't let my words get you riled - I have my opinions but they're only mine.
I'm only a TaS-watcher, but consider myself a long-time casual player of games if that makes sense.
Anyways, here's my thoughts on your level/edit.
- I hated the jump just before the half-way point. We can't see the koopa we're meant to bounce off until we jump. Don't make 'leaps of faith' unless you have a good reason and the jump is a simple one.
- liked the hidden platforms going to the Lakitu.
- the row of koopas we needed to bounce off, one by one, is rather tricky.
- the entire level can basically be skipped by flying through it, rendering the 'puzzle' and challenges null and void. Maybe having the dragon coins at ground level to encourage folk to go the 'hard route' or having a secret exit at ground level or sky-bound obstacles would work well. Or maybe ensure that none of your platforms are long enough to build up the speed to fly.
- the goal floating in mid-air looks weird and glitchy. I know that you're experimenting with the tools, but having the goal on a really tall platform wouldn't have changed the level itself, but would have made the positioning in keeping with SMW's internal rules. If you want to be a pro level designer, you've got to pay heed to those internal rules that every good game establishes.
- If a player reached the mid-way point then dies, they can't use the spring for the exit (without going back and doing some superhuman feats...)
The entire level seemed a bit patchy and bare. Two sections - the gaps with winged koopas - were tough, whilst most of it seemed like areas between them, rather than parts of a level in their own right. It may be worth extending a theme more fully across a level and ensuring that you don't have 'dead zones' that just seem like areas to traverse, without much happening.
I got some fun out of it, but it fell short of the quality of good professional output, and those are some reasons maybe why.
I'm just some random guy. Don't let my words get you riled - I have my opinions but they're only mine.
I think the Mario 64 TAS is - from all I have seen so far - the most impressive thing and really shows what's possible when you take the game beyond breaking point.
As a non-experienced person, that is what I would recommend to fellow newcomers.
I'm just some random guy. Don't let my words get you riled - I have my opinions but they're only mine.