Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Former player
Joined: 6/15/2005
Posts: 1711
Warp,
That's just you being a sloppy reader. Just go back and reread those posts again and I'm sure you'll agree with that. There is just no way you could resonably interpret my posts as saying "a submission considerably faster than the existing publication should be accepted regardless of how suboptimal it is" or anything similar. What I did say was suboptimal play is not grounds for automatic rejection:
"and the fact that it can be improved is definitely not in itself a reason to reject a run in my opinion. ", which I also repeated a few times in the more recent posts.
And I have stressed many times that it's not speed ("faster") that's important. It's "better".
"Basic example: We have two movies avaliable, one is better than the other. We choose the better one."
Yet, your entire last post keeps dealing with "faster playthrough", "beats previous published movie", "relies on newly-found trick to get faster time" and shit. This is just not at all what I've been saying and if you just read my posts again I feel confident you would see that and agree with that.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Former player
Joined: 6/15/2005
Posts: 1711
Bisqwit wrote:
If this movie is accepted, I can guess someone will pull forth the Super Mario Bros 2 Princess-only argument again. That submission was rejected, because although it was faster than the currently published run, it was of less impressive construction.
Politics, politics.
Ignoring politics, I think I can agree with adelikat's point in this particular case.
Sounds completely consistent with "is the movie better or worse?" to me. Apparently that one was not better than the published one. The key is not "is it faster?", it's "is it better?" imo.
Anyway I have the avi of this now so can you guys point me to where the mistakes easily visible to people not familiar with the game are? I've watched 35 minutes so far and I'm very surprised with the quality of play. The way you guys were talking about it, I got the impression it was just horrible. I want to know where the "worst" stuff is.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Former player
Joined: 6/15/2005
Posts: 1711
This feels like a small and pretty stupid nitpick, especially after you said you agree with me, but my point is that ANY amount of improvability is acceptable, as long as the final result is better than what we have avaliable (note that this is not the case for a run which has no movie published though).
What I mean is I feel there is no point where a movie is too suboptimal to automatically face rejection in this case.
Yeah this is probably like 90% semantics 10% whatever so feel free to ignore.
Edit: Yeah Chef Stef totally different situation when there is no movie published imo, as covered above.
Edit again: Actually I have some comments on your post too Chef.
I agree with the "why not try making the movie as perfect as possible before publishing" when the movie is in its planning stages. I feel this distinction is very important though, and when a final movie is actually submitted, this argument falls apart in favor or "choose A or B" like I said earlier. My opinion obviously.
However, I definitely agree with you for a movie not yet submitted/being worked on/being planned/etc. Strive for perfection, but here we are in the workbench with a run that's better than the published one (note: for argument's sake) and my opinion is it should be published.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Former player
Joined: 6/15/2005
Posts: 1711
After reading half your reply (I'll get to the other half later), I think either you or me don't understand what a slippery slope is. Unfortunately it's probably me.
Actually I read the rest now too and I don't have many objections. I'd remind you that the key is "better" not "faster" like I said earlier to moozooh, otherwise it seems we're mostly on the same page. I definitely agree we should aim for perfection, no arguments there.
I guess the thing I've been protesting is the notion that a run being suboptimal would somehow automatically place it in the rejection bin. Instead, what I feel is the right approach is to compare run A to run B, then decide which one you like best (=is better), and publish that one.
Overall I'm going to guess this run is better than Guano's, hence it should be published imo.
Edit: I'm glad to see petrie shares my confusion, makes me feel like less of an idiot.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Former player
Joined: 6/15/2005
Posts: 1711
P.JBoy wrote:
Xkeeper wrote:
It's actually a lot better in 3x or higher, especially on a dark background, but can see your point.
On the same thought, I think PJBoy's objects are a bit bright.
My monitor is a bit dark
Maybe try adjusting the brightness, might help if you find things too dark.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Former player
Joined: 6/15/2005
Posts: 1711
moozooh wrote:
It wasn't a typo. From what I see in people's comments (can't be arsed to watch an OoT movie myself, you know I dislike the game), this run is faster, not better.
And by better, I mean "using the present knowledge to its potential", or in other words, doing everything right. If it contains a couple new glitches but fails at generic optimization, it would be a mistake to accept it. Accepting the previous run I consider a mistake as well.
All fair points. Agree to disagree. Not like I can argue in any case, I didn't watch the movie either.
Also, I should note that the two runs aren't in exactly same conditions. One is already published and can't be unpublished, another isn't published (yet). No-one is obliged to publish it.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Former player
Joined: 6/15/2005
Posts: 1711
Xkeeper,
Good luck changing an encoder's mind through discussion. Encoders spend their free time encoding movies they want to encode. If you want it done differently, why don't you try it out yourself? You seem to have the palette thing down.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Former player
Joined: 6/15/2005
Posts: 1711
mwl,
Any chance of that technical commentary you were talking about for Guano's run last year happening? I imagine there's some confusing stuff going on in this run, plus it would be a good opportunity to point out to future runners spots where play is suboptimal and possible improvements and such.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Former player
Joined: 6/15/2005
Posts: 1711
switch out "faster" for "better" (assuming typo here) and yes, that's exactly what should be promoted imo.
Basic example: We have two movies avaliable, one is better than the other. We choose the better one.
Agree to disagree.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Former player
Joined: 6/15/2005
Posts: 1711
Raiscan wrote:
The point is we'd be publishing something we know can easily be beaten and optimized. Goes against what the site is here for, does it not? Aiming for perfection I mean. With more time and care spent the run could be much more impressive.
Then you'd have to introduce arbitrary slippery slope arguments which just opens up a can of worms. Most submissions have known improvements in them, some signficant, some not so significant.
This comes up in plenty of submission threads, and the fact that it can be improved is definitely not in itself a reason to reject a run in my opinion.
If encoders don't feel a run such as this is on top of their to do list, I think that's understandable and very reasonable. That's another topic though.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Former player
Joined: 6/15/2005
Posts: 1711
Saturn,
Not doubting that you believe the things you're saying. It doesn't matter either, what do I care if some run I don't care about is extremely good or if it's absolutely perfect. What matters is you're being a gigantic shithole and you come off as a personality invented in someone's mind rather than an actual human being.
JXQ,
Liked the alphabetic touch so as to not single out anyone in particular! <3
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Former player
Joined: 6/15/2005
Posts: 1711
You know if Saturn was just a little more secretive about his work I'd be like 95% convinced he was just a very elaborate and pretty awesome troll. Most of his comments are just unreal to me.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Former player
Joined: 6/15/2005
Posts: 1711
Callmewoof wrote:
And then this, well, I'm not sure who's going to come out ahead, but frankly its a lot less fun to follow because of the "perfection" hanging in the air like a dense fog...
Regardless of the results of the actual TASing, I can tell you for sure who in this discussion is NOT coming out ahead.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Former player
Joined: 6/15/2005
Posts: 1711
Xkeeper wrote:
Fabian wrote:
AND WHAT'S THE DEAL WITH PEOPLE MISSPELLING LOSE AND LOOSE AM I RIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
coughYes, I know I've violated this myself a few times, but I try and stay civil and actually contribute something, and I've been working on it. This is just getting old.
cough cough
Anyway happy to hear you'we working on it. gl
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Former player
Joined: 6/15/2005
Posts: 1711
"In the third book, Voldemort is said to be the most feared dark wizard in the last centry (pages 10-11). By that logic, there was someone much worse 100 years ago."
This doesn't necessarily mean there have been "worse" wizards earlier in history. In fact I'm pretty sure it's mentioned in several places throughout the books that Voldemort is the worst one ever.
Another mention of magic progress I just thought of is Dumbledore's discovery of the 12 uses for dragon blood in his youth.
