Well, more WTF-inducing Castlevania goodness. Enjoyed it, even though a bit more elaborative description of the techniques used would be handy. A clear yes vote.
"Kids! Bringing about Armageddon can be dangerous. Do not attempt it in your home."
( Pratchett & Gaiman: Good Omens )
Very nice game actually, I had skipped this previously. Somehow it feels like a crossbreed between contra and castlevania. Anyway, improvement on previous movie and still looking good, yes.
"Kids! Bringing about Armageddon can be dangerous. Do not attempt it in your home."
( Pratchett & Gaiman: Good Omens )
Some levels had some creative solutions, that weren't outright apparent, but still it gets boring after a while.
Anyway, I'm voting meh because I was fairly entertained by some of the levels. Some other mode of this game might be better suited for TASing, I guess?
"Kids! Bringing about Armageddon can be dangerous. Do not attempt it in your home."
( Pratchett & Gaiman: Good Omens )
As this has become nothing more than insulting academic standards at my school, moderators, please close this topic.
Isn't this comparable to "cancelling" your topic?
This didn't go as you planned for it to go through with the audience it was aimed towards, so you want to cancel it. One would think that it's exactly the same deal with cancelling submissions.
"Kids! Bringing about Armageddon can be dangerous. Do not attempt it in your home."
( Pratchett & Gaiman: Good Omens )
I don't see how the amount of time spent can be used to judge anything. Author may be congratulated for the effort they've invested in their run, but that shouldn't make any difference to the final call about publishing it. If you can make perfect runs in fast time (work hours), good for you.
Still I'm usually kind of curious how each run was made and what kind of effort was put into it, so I hope this won't affect future submissions since you are in no way required to give out these statistics.
I haven't voted since I haven't watched this run recently.
"Kids! Bringing about Armageddon can be dangerous. Do not attempt it in your home."
( Pratchett & Gaiman: Good Omens )
If you are the authenticity fan, note that GB movies aren't created with real gameboy colors. Since gameboys themselves were dot matrix-based, thy couldn't actually show even half the contrast of the B&W picture you're seeing in the video. Go to VBA settings, "Gameboy -> "Gameboy Colors". Looking good, eh? But that's how it was intended! Also, I dare you to look at how N64 encodes are created: 1, 2. Does it make them look like the actual game looked on the screen?
I also would like you to remember that SGB player allows pseudo-colorization on the console itself. SDA gameboy encodes are also pseudo-colorized for that matter — because everyone knows that even 8 colors are less boring than a B&W picture.
If I was an authenticity fan, I wouldn't be watching movies made on emulators in the first place. I was merely speculating what the reasons behind this might be, personally I couldn't care less either way.
Though if it *was* me deciding, I'd probably go for using filters since that's what I use on the emulators anyway. I was unaware of the console being able to do pseudo-colorization though.
"Kids! Bringing about Armageddon can be dangerous. Do not attempt it in your home."
( Pratchett & Gaiman: Good Omens )
If you use colors, why not use filters as well?
I think it's quite fine to publish the movies "as-is", or how the games were made. If you want to see it in colors, nothing is stopping you from watching the vbm. (Not to mention colors are subjective, and would generate whine anyway, since "it's not how it was intended").
"Kids! Bringing about Armageddon can be dangerous. Do not attempt it in your home."
( Pratchett & Gaiman: Good Omens )
Even if hacks could get stars, the length of this movie makes it an impossible candidate.
Length should not be a determing factor. If it was, we might as well star the very shortest runs (King's Bounty, anyone?) since that's obviously good judgment.
Just for the record, if long runs make bad candidates, it doesn't mean that short runs make excellent candidates. (And yes, I know that wasn't a serious suggestion, thank you).
I think length is a determining factor, at least if we are talking about "Runs suggested for a first time viewer". Person matching that criteria most likely doesn't want to spend 2 hours on something he/she has never seen before and chances are that they pick something familiar and shorter.
Then again, this discussion should be at the "runs to be starred" -topic over at General.
"Kids! Bringing about Armageddon can be dangerous. Do not attempt it in your home."
( Pratchett & Gaiman: Good Omens )
Ooh, a monk or an inventor. And I would be a NPC (well, hopefully it would be a plot-related NPC then and not one of those filler-dudes that no one ever talks to). Ah well.
"Kids! Bringing about Armageddon can be dangerous. Do not attempt it in your home."
( Pratchett & Gaiman: Good Omens )
Ghosts 'n Goblins even manages to look sadistically hard when watching, making it look very impressive. Especially the double boss fights look great.
I'm not a huge fan of the second quest, so it didn't really bother me that this movie doesn't complete it like Guano's movie does. In any case, finding 15 seconds worth of improvement in a movie which has had gazillion versions already is already impressive enough to yes this.
Congraturation.
"Kids! Bringing about Armageddon can be dangerous. Do not attempt it in your home."
( Pratchett & Gaiman: Good Omens )
I'm guessing AKA means this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCZvHV5Lhh4
It's says it's 7:41 but the video is 9:34 long, so I'm guessing timing differences or something? Is this actually the same movie?
"Kids! Bringing about Armageddon can be dangerous. Do not attempt it in your home."
( Pratchett & Gaiman: Good Omens )
I liked this as well, despite the fact the game tried it's very best to make my ears fall off due to unforeseen stress. I mean seriously, could the development team listen to that annoying buzzsaw-sound and enjoy the game?
I see a lot of potential in this game, some of which was wasted in this movie. In the late part of the run you started using the extra lines to make things more interesting, but towards that end I think the waiting time could be used to conjure up quite nifty stuff (creative figures etc, think of JXQ's Metroid keypress animations). Still, I wasn't bored and no extra lines at the beginning meant less of the buzzsaw. This is wildly subjective matter, of course.
Yesing dis.
"Kids! Bringing about Armageddon can be dangerous. Do not attempt it in your home."
( Pratchett & Gaiman: Good Omens )
Halo 3 will contain bugs. Lots of them. Does that mean it's Bungie's fault for not sending me a constant stream of beta copies so I could help them debug it? No, Bungie has their own team of paid beta testers, people who they have chosen on their own. If they choose to show nobody, it will have even more bugs, but that's their choice. I don't deserve to be in on it just because I theoretically have the ability to help them.
Well, not to derail the topic, but the analogy flawed on it's premise, because Bungie wants to keep their stuff hidden for added sales and it would be in their best interest (in regards to quality) to let everyone who is willing to beta test their game to do so. Combining millions of willing players with a team of testers you'd probably find more bugs than with only a team of professional testers. This is of course not feasible from economical standpoint (sales).
IMHO a better analogy (if one is even needed that is) is an open-source project to develop The Best FPS Shooter Ever Made (tm). One (or multiple) members of the team just decide to keep whatever they're doing a secret in hopes of surprising everyone when they're done with whatever killer features they're developing and thus harm the team's integrity and possibly delay completion.
"Kids! Bringing about Armageddon can be dangerous. Do not attempt it in your home."
( Pratchett & Gaiman: Good Omens )
Coolness. Bionic Commando is always nice to watch for the swinging action present in the movie. :)
In any case it's an improvement done in unmatched style so a clear yes.
"Kids! Bringing about Armageddon can be dangerous. Do not attempt it in your home."
( Pratchett & Gaiman: Good Omens )
This would save some people a bit of inconvenience if they wish to be able to view the poll results without influencing them unduly.
"View results" link below the poll?
Anyway, that wouldn't be such a bad idea at all, if it's seen desirable that the author shouldn't vote on his own submission.
"Kids! Bringing about Armageddon can be dangerous. Do not attempt it in your home."
( Pratchett & Gaiman: Good Omens )
Even though I can understand people find this boring, this was one very interesting movie for me, as I've played Star Control II a great deal in the past (and now some with Ur-Quan Masters). It's still an excellent game, which is sadly explored too little in this movie. Thus, I encourage everyone to go and grab UQM and get to know this gem if you've somehow missed it.
Planning seems to be in order and even though the execution lacks in the action department, I'm still going to yes. This mainly for the planning of routes and resource usage that are the core of the game.
"Kids! Bringing about Armageddon can be dangerous. Do not attempt it in your home."
( Pratchett & Gaiman: Good Omens )
