FBA cannot use console mode(AES:Advanced Entertainment System).Console mode have 4 coins for each player at first.
This justifies using up up to 4 coins per player in my book. There's still the argument of by-passing a game over screen, but imo the game is only really over if you've failed at inserting another coin (and pressing start) before the time runs out.
I voted no because I can't see this obsoleting any other currently published run, I wasn't entertained by it, and because creating another category would probably just be too much.
In terms of execution, I'm sure it's about 99% perfect though. The main reason I voted no is essentialy because when given the current layout of the site, this run simply doesn't seem to fit in. I wouldn't publish it anywhere, but mention it somewhere in the submission text of the slower any% run or at least the game's resource page.
(Because various cues in the text point toward Rowling intending to write a somewhat serious story, I contend she should have written fiction without inconsistencies, rather than included correctives that allow readers to accept the entire story as, for example, a fairy tale.)
I have not read all HP books, but that's an interesting point. I also seem to remember some indications that it's a "serious" story (beyond the level of seriousness of a fairy tale), but many more that it's purely fantastic. In any case, multiple inconsistencies indicate that the story doesn't attempt to be self-consistent.
The issue is that Harry Potter presents itself as a somewhat serious story, and in the contexts in which it is serious, it has inconsistencies, such as, "why doesn't anyone in the Harry Potter universe think to use time travel to accomplish something important?"
I guess I have somewhat ellaborated why that's actually a non-issue (to many people). It seems you aren't accustomed to the idea of a willing suspension of disbelief. I have included a wikipedia link in my last post. I could try to dig up further references if you're interested.
As to your other question, sure, plenty of stories represent time travel consistently. For example, from what I remember of Groundhog Day.
Thanks. I'll try to read/watch it somewhen. I was referring to consistencies within the rules of physics in the fictional world actually. I do realize that those inconsistencies would alienate a lower number of readers than more obvious inconsistencies within the plot of the book.
And yes, if a world is less consistent, then more is possible.
A baseless assertion. Are there more rational numbers than integers? It seems to me that if your argument hinges upon the contention that "the set of stories which are consistent or inconsistent" is larger than the "set of stories which are consistent or inconsistent but properly contextualized" you need to prove it. Good luck.
That's not my point. I'll reword it to "There are less restrictions to the imagination of the reader within the fictional world of the book." As a reader I don't have to worry if what I imagine is possible in the Potter-verse if there are numerous inconsistencies within the book itself.
The same is true for the author and you could attribute that to laziness, but only if there is nothing else that the author did perfectly well. Rowling has simply focused on something else.
By the way, one of her goals seems to have been to write many sequels and finish them before her audience reaches adulthood, so she couldn't have made them totally perfect. It made more sense for her to make them just good enough. This is somewhat besides the point when we argue about the books, but important when we make a judgement on whether she's a good or bad author. To clarify, I do agree that her books could have been better, but I disagree that making them consistent would have objectively improved them.
But if you don't care if anything makes any sense, how is it bothersome if a story happens to make sense?
Because the reader's freedom of imagination is then restricted within the fictional world of the book. Something that I speculate a younger audience to usually perceive as something negative on a sub-conscious level.
I'm sure anyone could come up with further arguments.
You suggest some people read fiction to escape into worlds where anything is possible, but are those people really searching for unintentionally inconsistent nonsense, or simply a fantasy world of magic and enchantment?
That it's unintentional is only your assumption. I guess it's generally a world where they don't have to obey too many rules.
But Rowling also goes to great pains to represent Harry Potter as a world virtually identical to our own, save for a secret, underground society of magic that is hidden from normal people who are just like you and me, and exist in a world just like our own.
I think to have connected those worlds is nothing more than a pretty smart trick by her so children are more inspired to dream of entering that world too or even theorize that it really exists. It makes the book more immersive for them. I think any indication that it's a purely fantastic and inconsistent world generally overrides any contradicting indications, but I don't have anything at hand to back that up. That's actually a pretty interesting topic.
Students go to school and study it. They practice flicking their wands just so, practice mixing reagents, memorize phrases and practice saying them, etc., precisely because magic, it seems, has logical rules that need to be learned and followed.
Good point. They probably go to school so children that go to school too can identify with the characters of the book more easily. This comes at the cost of imposing some logical rules the world has to obey, but I don't think they restrict the readers' freedom of imagination by a lot. I don't think the concept of a magical school was introduced to make it more realistic. In fact, I haven't interpreted the series as trying to be particularly realistic at all. It seems that you have, which is fine. But any conclusions you'll base on your interpretation won't be objective.
Incorrect. Again, the problem with Harry Potter is that it presents itself as an essentially serious, consistent world. (Our world, plus some magic.)
My perception is that it's more like a magical world where anything is possible, plus somehow connected to our real world. I suspect that to be the more common interpretation because usually we perceive what is unusual as more important.
You trying to come up with stupid nonsensical examples for reasons to justify stupid nonsense is also getting really tiring. First of all, trying to justify an obvious error with arbitrary contrivance is just unconvincing. ...
The point is not that you could conceivably find at least one person that would enjoy used toilet paper. The point is for readers not to be surprised by used toilet paper randomly being in the middle of a book.
I wasn't trying to be convincing. I have no intention of winning this argument. I know you could come up with counter arguments to everything I say. Pretty much anybody can do that. That's why I'm not a big fan of arguing over pointless matters until one of the parties gives up. I see no point to it. I think we've both expressed our opinions sufficiently that further continuing the arument won't be very beneficial to either of us.
Yes, my examples were thought up very badly. I took a minimal effort. I'm sure you can come up with a better one that will make you see that there exist some people that like stories for being inconsistent, if you just tried. They won't like them for being inconsistent itself, but for what taking away the element of consistency does to the story.
I don't remember Harry Potter as being consistent except for when the event of time travelling occured, so I don't think the analogy to "being surprised by used toilet paper randomly being in the middle of the book" is very fitting. It may very well be fitting for certain works of science fiction though.
Anyway, all I'm trying to say is you can't judge art objectively. Your counter-argument is that you can add certain positive features to a piece of art to make it better, and that it wouldn't come at a cost. (I hope we can agree that as long as it comes at a cost, the improvement is only subjective.) I have hinted at how adding consistency can make a book subjectively worse by restricting the freedom imagination of young readers, and poorly illustrated how resolving the inconsistencies can actually be fun to the reader (it can be fun to adult readers too because it'd make them feel intellectually superior to the author). Also, there is a number of readers who are used to suspending their disbelief and thus perfectly immune to alienations caused by inconsistencies. For them, there are no negative side effects at all.
Edit: Pointless Boy wrote:
What I've been trying to talk about the whole time is Lem's and Eco's thoughts on more or less objective criteria on which fiction can be evaluated in many cases
Yea, more or less. What I actually remember you to have said suggested is that they are totally objective (and then insulted pieces of fiction that don't adhere to these criteria, and thereby also insulted anybody who likes those pieces of fiction), and that I disagree with.
@Pointless Boy: I'll go a bit meta on this.
Your initial post in this topic is full of strong words that heavily exaggerate your point of view. You also don't seem to disagree that you think you're objectively right about what you've said. I find the point of view you've presented to be totally smart, valid and interesting and I'm happy to have been confronted with it. However, you are also claiming to be able to objectively judge how good a book is by that criterion you've presented, which I find to be very ridiculous. I have considered the following 3 reasons for why you could be doing this:
a) You are simply trolling
b) You are voicing honest literary criticism, but overexaggerate your point to get more attention. This is something many literary critics do. It's part of their job. Your claim for being objectively right wouldn't have to be taken seriously then.
c) You honestly believe that you are objectively right
d) Some other reason that just didn't come to my mind yet
After the replies you have given and having read the argument starting [URL=http://tasvideos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=250873#250873]here[/URL] in which you seem to be telling Fabian that overusing embellishments in his music is objectively bad* (this may only be my personal interpretation), I'd put you somewhere between b and c, strongly leaning towards c.** If that was to be true, then that would be very bad for you imo, because it means you're tragically trapped inside your own point of view and you'd thereby be unnecessarily limiting your personal and intellectual growth. This is something that p4wn3r has also hinted at already, in slightly different words.
p4wn3r wrote:
Also, you'd only change your mind if someone showed that something has meaning inside your own assumptions, and this is impossible since no one can fully understand your conceptions. This discussion can't possibly lead anywhere.
As long as you're so convinced of your own opinion you are going to win every argument. Not necessarily because you are right, but because winning the argument means more to you than the one who's challenging your point of view. It's pointless arguing directly with anybody who doesn't doubt for a second that they're being absolutely right.
*) For the record, I personally found his heavy use of embellishments to be quite refreshing. I would have probably found it more mind-numbing had his arrangement been more ordinary (because you can hear stuff that is totally usual and ordinary just about anywhere).
As I don't think your point of view is invalid, I haven't really brought up any strong counter-arguments, but only hinted at what points of view they could be based on. I hoped you'd take the time to think about how there could be people who subjectively disagree with your claim that increased consistency always improves a book, and come to the conclusion that you therefore can't be objectively right. The impression that I get now is that you have probably entirely disregarded what I've said instead because it didn't really challenge the validity of your point of view, which seems to be the only thing you care about. You can still feel that you are totally right. And you are. But not objectively. (This means you are only right as long as your criteria of judgement are applied.)
Pointless Boy wrote:
Again, you are manufacturing complexity where none exists solely for the purpose of arguing. Contrast that with my simplifying question about Harry Potter. "Why don't any of the characters in Harry Potter do the most obvious thing with time travel, that is, use it for something incredibly useful?" When presented with the opportunity to travel through time, that's what most people would do. They would go save a loved one, or make a billion on the stock market, or kill Hitler as a baby, or use it to learn how to woo the man/woman of their dreams, etc. Why don't any of the characters in Harry Potter (good or bad, stupid or smart) do that?
Is it possible that somewhere in this world there is a little boy who reads that passage of Harry Potter asking himself that same question, but he'd still continue reading and enjoying the book because he's able to keep up his [URL=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspension_of_disbelief]willing suspension of disbelief[/URL]? Why'd he be willing to do that? So he can enjoy the book anyway. Not because he's stupid. Then at night when he'd go to bed he'd think about what would have happened if Harry would indeed have travelled backwards in time to save his parents. Omg, Rowling's "bad writing style" has succeeded in fuelling that little boys fantasy!
Now, whether Rowling intended for this to happen or whether it's a lucky mistake, we don't know. But usually we give the author the benefit of the doubt.
Anyway, this boy has now subjectively perceived this inconsistency to be something good. He wasn't bothered by it in the least, but it has fueled his fantasy. *** He had a dream involving time travelling that night and enjoyed it very much. His interest in the actual physics of time travelling has also increased. So can you still say that such inconsistencies are objectively bad? No, it's just a different style of writing geared towards a different audience than the one you are part of. They like that style a lot. You therefore aren't objectively right.
(I hope I don't need to point out that Rowling would have had to leave out time travelling if she wanted her book to be consistent and logical, unless she wants to write a totally confusing book in which people pop up and disappear all the time, that her target audience would have disliked for that very reason. Or introduce an arbitrary reason for why time travel is only possible that one time. Or whatever.)
***) I hope I don't need to argue why inconsistencies are sometimes very effective at doing this, very similar to open endings.
Also, as I've said before, one book can never satisfy all possible readers in this world at once. So even if something improves a book for the majority of people, doing the opposite doesn't make it objectively worse. Maybe the book is only geared to that group of people who'll perceive it as good because of it. As long as there are people who enjoy the book the way it is, it has every right to be that way. "Objectively better" is a totally invalid concept. Diversity is as important as perfectionism. Perfectionism doesn't make anything objectively better.
**) In case it's more of somewhere between a and b, then I have just totally wasted my time. ^^
What I was trying to say was that in theory, it'd make it better, but an increased level of consistency would in reality often have to come at the cost of something else.
Pointless Boy wrote:
But to make it more consistent, you'd have to make it more logical (o rly?) and leave stuff like backwards time travel out.
You make a number of assumptions here, namely that consistency in fiction is the same as logic (it is not) and that backwards time travel is necessarily both inconsistent and illogical (it is not.)
Yes indeed. I'd argue that inconsistency always stems from flaws in the internal logic of a piece of fiction. If the rules of the fictional world are inconsistent, that makes that world less logical. That in turn leads to an increased freedom of imagination, at the cost of credibility.
I don't understand a lot about physics, but I've heard that if a body had to travel backwards in time and arrive at a location in space that is close enough so that the body could have an influence on its own past, then that would require that body to travel faster than the speed of light and to become infinitely big. To my understanding worm holes that will eject you in the past will always eject you so far away that you cannot have an influence on anything that could have had a casual impact on the body that entered the worm hole either. I assume that if you create a fictional universe in which any of that is possible, it always creates logical inconsistencies in the physics of that world, that can be found if you only dig deep enough. I'd be curious if you can point out any logically consistant piece of fiction that involves backwards time travel in the usual sense. (if it instantly creates a parallel universe then you aren't in the actual past, but in a copy-verse, that it'd take more amount of energy to create than you could possibly have at your disposal. or whatever argument)
Pointless Boy wrote:
It restricts what is possible.
No, it restricts how the author can present the story without alienating the reader.
Yes. But there is a part of the audience that won't get alienated either way.
Pointless Boy wrote:
However, Harry Potter is meant to fuel children's fantasies, and that is done by envoking the totally opposite feeling in the reader (that in the world of Harry Potter (almost) anything is possible).
Such feelings can easily be evoked in a fashion that doesn't alienate the reader, assuming alienation of the reader is not the author's goal.
That is true, except that for that part of the audience who won't get alienated either way, it'd probably be more efficient to take the approach that you dislike so much.
Pointless Boy wrote:
I'd say to make them more consistent would actually make Rowling's books worse for what they are.
This is almost a tautological falsehood.
No, there are people who like to escape into worlds where anything is possible. And yes, if a world is less consistent, then more is possible. Maybe I'm reading the book because I'm sick of the self-consistency of this world. Maybe I'm having trouble understanding anything that involves logic, but I like the world of Harry Potter where they can use magic to make their dreams come true (somewhat) and they don't have to care if it makes any sense. Maybe that'd feel like a big relief to me because for the time I'm reading the book, I don't have to worry about logical constraints at all.
And just in case you'll bring it up again, no I don't think logic and consistency are the same thing, but they are closely related in this case.
Pointless Boy wrote:
Consider, for example, a story in which one of the characters is presented as an expert chemist and an MD. He also happens to be a crazed serial killer, and his method of killing is to poison people to death with LSD.
Ok, what's wrong with that? LSD is non-toxic, and both expert chemists and medical doctors would of course know that. Even if the character somehow didn't know that, he'd soon discover it to be the case after he tried to poison his first victim. At least, he would if the story were consistent and crafted so as not to alienate the reader. A good author would simply have the chemist-doctor poison people to death with something that is actually capable of killing people, e.g. heroin. Or if the victims hallucinating hysterically before they die was part of the story, he could use a species of mushroom that contains both psilocybin/psilocin and a poisonous substance, of which there are a few.
If that story is set in an otherwise realistic setting, then you are totally right. The reader would assume that any rules that they know from the real world would also apply to that fictional world. But if the book starts out by somebody entering a magic world through the wall at track 9 3/4, and the reader still assumes that, then he's just being an idiot. Such an introduction should tell the reader, similar to "Once upon a time...", that logic and consistency will play only a minor role in that fictional universe. Introducing high numbers of humanoid alien species that all happen to speak English should f.e. suffice to serve a similar purpose.
Pointless Boy wrote:
Does altering that story for the purpose of consistency and to avoid alienating the reader result in any meaningful change for people who don't recognize the inconsistency, either because they are stupid, ignorant, or lazy readers? Not in the least. It simply makes the story objectively better in every way.
Hm, yea, in your example I'd basically agree. If the book is consistent everywhere else but for that one part, then it could either have been a deliberate decision by the author for whatever reason or just be a case of bad writing. The same goes for some worlds in science fiction, but not for all of them. It's certainly a whole different story with Harry Potter.
Pointless Boy wrote:
I certainly can't claim this is possible for all stories ever told, but I can say that I've never seen a movie or read a book that couldn't be easily fixed in this manner without making substantive changes to the plot, Harry Potter included. (Granted, HP would require many such changes.) Moreover, in most stories, the actual execution of the plot is rather unimportant, it is only necessary that it is done well.
That just tells me that you like consistency. You feel that any piece of fiction is clearly improved by it. That's just you and that's totally fine. How do you figure, they'd be objectively better though? Have you never seen somebody preferring something that's not consistent and they weren't even bothered by it? I know many people who watch movies just to go on an emotional rollercoaster. They won't care about consistency, they'd just expose themselves to the emotional part of it exclusively, totally suspending any form of disbelief. Again, adding an element of consistency will restrict the writer, unnecessarily, if their audience only consists of people who don't care.
Pointless Boy wrote:
What will be perceived as good always depends on the readers' demands and expectations to the book.
Part of the reader's demands are, in fact, shaped by the author. For example, when a story starts with "once upon a time," the author has instantly groomed the reader to be prepared for a fantastic, bizarre, and entirely arbitrary fairy tale. Good authors include the correct cues to allow their readers to shape their thinking appropriately, to become what Eco calls a "model reader." An actual reader, whether model or not, may still not enjoy fairy tales, but he cannot deny the author gave a cue to appropriately shape his expectations, and he has nothing to complain about.
I totally agree. Why do you have such trouble with inconsistencies then? There are model readers who don't care about it. At all.
Pointless Boy wrote:
Usually, it is impossible to fulfill all of them at once, so a perfect book cannot exist. When a book doesn't meet the needs of any reader, then it's definitely a bad book (it may still prove to only have been "ahead of its time" though). But books that at least meet the needs of one certain group of readers are impossible (or at least incredibly difficult) to compare objectively in terms of how good they are.
Patently false. Changing LSD to heroin in my above example is inarguably an objective improvement. (We assume LSD and heroin have no meaning other than as potential poisons, that is, for example, no character had a mother that died due to an accidental overdose of heroin. If that's not true, then potential changes to the text must also be aware of any additional meaning the text carries.) In my experience, such improvements are universally available, most authors simply don't care to avail themselves of the opportunity to write good books.
So what if there's a group of people who are involved in an anti-LSD campaign and are quite happy to see a book where LSD is used to kill people? Maybe you should read it in a symbolic sense (LSD is ruining some people's lives, no matter if it's relatively non-addictive, the murderer is the "dealer", etc). Maybe some people would argue that the author made that mistake on purpose so that people actually inform themselves about LSD. They'd all love the book for the same reason you'd dislike it, and you'd be there telling them they're objectively wrong, accomplishing what?
Pointless Boy wrote:
Making something appeal to a broader audience usually makes it less appealing to that subset of the audience that would have been satisfied anyway (because there's less of what they like most in it).
Patently false. If you correct an inconsistency that the "original audience" was already incapable of detecting, then the story now appeals to the original audience plus all people that were bothered by the inconsistency. I do not want Rowling to change her stories or her style. I merely want her to write well.
If that one single inconsistency can be fixed that easily, then you may generally be right. But you are talking about an author trying to achieve consistency, but failing. I'm talking about an author who thinks holding up the inner consistency of their fictional world will only get in the way of their writing. In that case there'd maybe be numerous inconsistencies that couldn't be fixed without ruining their book (that you'd argue was objectively bad in the first place, so of course from your point of view, it'd improve the book. but that's just you)
Back to science fiction, I know that some people enjoy arguing over inconsistencies in those ficitonal worlds a lot. It gives them a feeling of being intellectually superior. Maybe it's just a smart trick by the author? ;p
Is it correct to say, though, that all other things being equal, a story that is internally consistent is objectively better than one that isn't? (Assuming lack of internal consistency isn't an intentional feature of the story, for example, for humor, to confuse the reader, to signify dreams, to show a character's own fractured state of mind, etc.) I certainly think it is correct to say that.
No. Theoretically yes. But to make it more consistent, you'd have to make it more logical (o rly?) and leave stuff like backwards time travel out. It restricts what is possible. However, Harry Potter is meant to fuel children's fantasies, and that is done by envoking the totally opposite feeling in the reader (that in the world of Harry Potter (almost) anything is possible). I'd say to make them more consistent would actually make Rowling's books worse for what they are.
What will be perceived as good always depends on the readers' demands and expectations to the book. Usually, it is impossible to fulfill all of them at once, so a perfect book cannot exist. When a book doesn't meet the needs of any reader, then it's definitely a bad book (it may still prove to only have been "ahead of its time" though). But books that at least meet the needs of one certain group of readers are impossible (or at least incredibly difficult) to compare objectively in terms of how good they are. Making something appeal to a broader audience usually makes it less appealing to that subset of the audience that would have been satisfied anyway (because there's less of what they like most in it).
So no, it's not a fair assumption imo.
I get that for some people when they're faced with inconsistencies within the logic of the fantasy worlds within certain books they can no longer keep up their willing suspense of disbelief. It may be stupid to have those inconsistencies, but most people don't care. So if you're aiming at a casual audience, it really doesn't matter. Whenever I'm faced with those inconsistencies I see them as a challenge for me to not go all "omg this makes no sense, this book just sucks", but to somehow tolerate them, read on and try to find out why others may find it so enjoyable still.
Time travel, for example, is in itself pretty illogical. It never makes sense. So does that mean every author who has used it is automatically objectively bad? I really don't get how anybody could argue that way. There are people who enjoy stories that involve time travel a lot, but writing a piece of literature they'd enjoy makes you a bad author?
It's easy to come up with a long list problems of any genre. Are you trying to say science fiction is just bad and state it as a fact? You can't judge art just by checking if it follows certain rules. Any attempt at an objective judgement of art will always fail, no matter how long the list of arguments. That's because all of those argument will always be based on personal or cultural values. But there are always other people who have different values. And if you want to argue that their values must be flawed then, then that's just telling them how superior you think you are. You can't be an objective judge of that. I'm totally fine with arguing why you think science fiction is bad and I'm also fine with literary criticism if it's labeled as such, but in the context of these forums I feel the tone of your message is a bit off. If it had been (properly?) labeled as literary criticism I think I'd have enjoyed the read very much though.
I'm currently trying to get my script to simulate the random events of 0-1 properly (provided you take forever to beat it). Proper simulation isn't required to work for that particular stage, but will be useful for some later ones. It's a nice stage to test my code with though.
Edit: Wow, this turns out to be a lot more annoying to do than I thought it'd be. And that only for a very minimal reward. Looks like it's going to take me quite some time still.
In 0-1 Donkey Kong puts down a new barrel every 136 frames. Sometimes that barrel calls the RNG the instant it has been put down, but sometimes there's also a 1-3 frame delay. This is totally unexpected and I presently have no idea how to simulate that weird, seemingly random behavior.
I have a very basic understanding of the rules of Go and have voted Meh because the AI took forever to come up with its crappy moves and because this would have been as impressive done on a real GBA in real time. Good run but bad game choice?
The problem I have with that genre is that observers who have never played the game get a false representation of the difficulty (tiny hitboxes) and even of the game's objective. It's not to actually dodge the bullets, but just to find a movement pattern that will make you survive the bullet pattern and sticking to it. To find out how hard that is, you have to actually have played the game. It's impossible to know just from watching these videos.
I remember when I was a kid I didn't have the goal to beat games, but just to explore them. Maybe a universal TASing bot would have to start from there too. It'd be a much easier to define goal imo. A bot can certainly figure out how certain ram addresses affect each other because people can too, solely relying on algorithms and trial and error (raising hypotheses and testing them; raise such hypotheses first that have yielded much supporting evidence under similar conditions etc). It'd just be insanely difficult to program. I don't think that type of AI has ever been made.
Why is this thread being used to complain about movie tags (not) applied to a specific movie?! Go post this stuff in the movie threads themselves. This is a discussion about movie tags (and their applications) in general.
I also made that complaint when a submission came up that claimed to be improving that movie by being faster (missing tag maybe confused the author?) in the corresponding submission thread, but it got ignored. As it seems both of these places weren't the correct ones for such a complaint, I'm very sorry about that. I had assumed reviving old movie threads would probably be ignored. I made the mistake of posting in here because the thread name seemed pretty suggestive and I've seen many other complaints before mine in here.
I don't get why people say this is so unentertaining. If it was longer than 5 minutes, I'd get their point. But for me, I was still occupied with stuff like "wtf is this kind of game?" and "oh, so the maps get smaller as he progresses?" while watching the run, so I didn't find it too boring. The applied strategy may not be very entertaining by itself, but as the run's so short anyway, I don't see that as a problem.
I found this slightly more entertaining than the other submission and I'd suggest the glitched credits as a screen shot where it spells "GAGA".
XYZ
Stands for X/Y Zipping.
...
I would really really love to say that there was a third major improvement to this run, and that would be "the pure awesomness of andymac".
I shall thus rate this movie with a AAA (read: triple-A) for not only being amazingly awesome, but also by andymac.
Yes vote, just because of Simian Segue. xD
Although I'm not so sure either if this couldn't have been improved through better death management.
Edit: Wait, no, it's not Simian Segue. Zophar's Domain has it mislabeled, it seems.
Does anybody know what that song is actually called? (the Donkey Kong Country Main Theme)
If somebody did this for, say, the Wii, would that be the end of SDA? xD
Why do you think that the Wii is more important for SDA than the NES? I don't get that "xD" at the end of your line, either. Do you have something against SDA?
The xD means I'm basically kidding. It's an emoticon with South Park eyes and the x is lowercase to signify that I'm not strongly "XD"ing on this. There used to be a bit of rivalry between SDA and the TASing scene back in the day and I was sort of alluding to that. Their DK64 run by Manocheese was my favourite speed run of the past year, TAS and non-TAS combined.
Atm, I have very little motivation to finish my script. If nobody cares, I probably won't, as I personally don't anymore. But I have basically figured the RNG all out, which was very fun to do.
One annoying thing is that ladders and the position of enemies have an influence on how often the RNG is called (called twice when enemy passes a ladder (leftmost and rightmost spot), only once when turning around between those spots (or if it has already decided to climb the ladder during the first call, obviously)). To make a full prediction of random events (which I had intended my script to do given a certain stage plus the value the RNG starts at) in a stage with ladders and enemies, I'd thus have to simulate their movement through the terrain, but I don't quite feel like doing that. I'm also not motivated to finish a script if it's only going to be half-assed in the end, so yea.
Edit: For reasons I will probably never understand I have now started measuring out the first level. Yay.