And to tell you the truth, I don't like when games are pushed to their limits.
so you're on the wrong site then. It's like walking into an italian restaurant and yelling "I don't like pizza! What are you doing to the poor cheese?". It's completely pointless.
You may not like glitch abuse, and you're entitled to your opinion, but your claim that it'll ruin gaming is similar to my claim that you're a sheep fucker: it's offensive and completely unfounded. Every single person on this site loves games, and nobody intends to destroy anything.
This site has produced an enormous amount of entertaining videos. (Glitch-abusing) speedruns brought me into emulation to show me all the good games I never knew as a child. nesvideos managed to show me a whole new perspective on gaming which I really enjoy - and I'm still playing those games as I did before, it didn't ruin anything for me.
And it's not just me, TASes brought a friend of mine to de-dust his old NES, another friend of mine started playing SM64 after seeing the 0-star-tas. TASes as a result of glitch-hunting and abusing were a very good way to explain my way of thinking (geek brain) to my girlfriend, it helped her understand me better. The list goes on. So far I've yet to experience a negative effect of glitches or tool-assistance.
So if you don't like it, go somewhere else. But realize that your way of enjoying games isn't the only way to enjoy games, that you're not the one making the standards of what should be enjoyed and what shouldn't, and that glitches and tasing create a lot of enjoyment and appreciation of games for a lot of people, even if you can't experience that yourself.
now please, be so kind not to create a third thread about the issue in a couple of months. You're getting nowhere.
didn't keep me entertained all the way through. Had a few interesting moments, but you can only glitch through a wall so often until it gets boring. Might have been better if it was shorter.
voting meh.
they're aware that using the springball to open that gate is pointless in a speedrun, it's about proving that it might still be possible.
I still wouldn't call it impossible (I'd never), but it'd sure require something way more creative than just running and shooting a missile at it.
-You pump your arms up and down when running (Super Metroid)
you know, the centrifugal force will actually push you forward if you wave your arms the right way ;)
Bisqwit wrote:
> -When falling from a huge height, you have an urge to do a flip and land on your butt to avoid damage (Super Mario 64)
Or slash with whatever you are wielding (Ocarina of time), or grab a ladder at the last moment (Half-Life)...
There's instances in the half-life engine where you can survive any fall by landing on a certain slope. Works in video games, works for ski jumpers, HAS to work anywhere.
And if I did this correctly, then this is the only number that works.
Thanks, it was a fun problem!
got the same result, ruled out every other number as well.
dito, it was fun!
Randil:
there's positive results ranging from 1 to (k-c) points, and there's k events with equal probability. The expectation value is thus the sum of the values divided by the amount of events:
((k-c+1) * (k-c) / 2) / k
I liked the run and will vote yes.
Still, I consider longer boss fights more interesting than fast forwarding dialogs, so I'd vote for an improved hard mode run to obsolete this anytime.
for most emulators, the whole user interface would need to be rewritten to have the same featureset as the windows version. It's not an easy task and not a small request.
Your best bet is probably to use wine, it works ok.
yay, it's Turrican! \o/
I just loved that series as a kid (played the amiga versions though) and enjoyed your TAS. Voting yes, although that vote may be biased.
not really sure what to vote. The game was kinda boring (and hurt my ears) and there weren't many interesting TAS-only-moves to show off.
then again, we already have twomovies of master blaster games, and the pure weirdness will keep you watching, at least once.
not voting yet.
You're really on the wrong site if you crave unassisted skill feats. :)
But of course nobody is stopping you from doing the run (you said it'd be fun, right?) and then watching it.
back in the days of CS 7.0b to CS 1.1 I've been playing that a lot and had some fun coding AI enemys (bots) for it.
Then I switched to Quake3/defrag, played it for years, then lost motivation after a hd crash ate my records.
nowadays I'm just slaughtering poor bots on UT and UT2004 when I'm bored. InstaGib ftw!
oh yeah, I've played a couple of the popular single player FPS as well, but I generally play them only once, mostly for the story. Sometimes I don't even bother playing them and just watch a speedrun.
while there were some interesting arguments here, this discussion somewhat reminds me of the old joke that god can't make a rock so heavy he can't lift it (or can he?).
Maybe we should go back a couple of steps and verify our premises before logically deducing stupid things. We should ask what godly powers he's really supposed to possess. Can anyone back up both 'omniscient' and 'omnipotent' with bible quotes? Especially the part where he's supposed to know about the future?
There's a part right at the beginning of the bible strongly suggesting that god utterly failed to look into the future when he forgot to draw a fence around an apple tree.
My interpretation of the story is that god may know everything about current and past events, but in this universe he is bound to time just like everything else. He gave humans a free will - he may threaten them, show them the path, but he can't make them choose. Sure he can strike them down, ban them from paradise or make them burn in hell when they pick the wrong choice, but nowhere in the bible have I seen any reference to god touching a human's free will.
(But of course I haven't read much of the bible outside of school, so feel free to prove me wrong.)
Of course it's quite possible to limit god's powers without denying his omnipotence, and everything falls right back into place, but unless someone can actually establish what kind of powers god is supposed to possess that explanation would be a waste of good bits. :)
Because there's life in Earth, it must be possible for life to form by natural causes.
Evolution is a theory spawned by scientific observations, see darwin.
some important parts of the imagined life forming process have been tested and were successfully reproduced. We lack the couple of million years for extensive tests, but so far no experiment I know of turned out to give us data that'd contradict the theory. Having some evidence supporting theory A and no evidence supporting theory B (except for an old book claiming to tell a truth it doesn't care to prove), it's scientifically sensible to assume theory A is true.
Now, if you think life has been created, at what stage did the creation process take place? Did god create humans like the bible suggest? Science says humans evolved from some animals, and has good reasons to believe so, so there's your first contradiction.
Then again, those animals evolved from less complex life-forms. Evolution can explain everything from one-celled organisms to humans. chemistry can explain everything from dirty water to macro molecules. There surely is some scientific knowledge about the possibility of macro molecules to form one-celled organisms, but I'm not informed about it.
I currently see these ways to go about it:
1) life hasn't been created by $deity. The universe just went into existence for reasons outside of our scope. (While we can't explain why the universe exists, explaining it by $deity's creation would leave us with the same unanswered question of $deity's existence)
2) $deity deliberately created the universe in a way that allows life-forms like us to emerge.
3) $deity pushed us a little in overcoming an unlikely gap in the process of evolution from macro molecules to humans, or generally accelerated the process.
4) $deity didn't do anything at first, but finally decided that humans should carry souls (or a similar concept) and added them
5) god just created the universe 5 minutes ago but made it look like it was a couple of billion years old and had something like an evolution going on. This argument has been brought up by creationists before, and it's impossible to disprove, but it'd make the universe some giant sort of practical joke. Since that'd conflict with the concept of a loving god, let's drop this theory.
(feel free to add anything I missed)
With theory 1 or 2, it's likely that other planets spawned life-forms as well. Possibly even different from ours.
Theory 3 and 4 allow the concept of us being the chosen race and the only living things in the universe, but they don't necessarily enforce that view.
There's another question that comes to my mind: if god just created us as his chosen children, why is the universe so freaking huge? It's not like we'd have any use for that space.. I can only come up with two plausible answers:
- it's the tree of wisdom, version 2. God is testing us again. Will we lose faith once we recognize that we're lost in such a huge universe? (if this theory is correct, we seem to fail just like we did last time)
- it's a giant playground for us, because god wants to see how we cope in a big unknown world we can't possibly understand. Just like we do with our children: keep a watchful eye, offer advice where needed, but otherwise let them figure it out themselves. Thinking about it, that'd also mean that we should stop regarding the bible as a text of scientific truths and start trusting our own findings.
Anyway, life-forms on other planets wouldn't disprove religion. I'm sure there's enough love in god for all of us. Maybe god wanted us to find those other life-forms ourself and deliberately didn't include that information in the bible. Just stop taking the bible literally and many contradictions disappear.
oh well, hope this post made sense.
but refer to this post for the explanation of this name.
or this one from the older nickname thread. (so much about remembering 2 year old posts)
Bisqwit wrote:
2) Tub's dog set.
Thank you, I guess this warrants using my 'comfort' avatar. :)
Dear Bisqwit,
are you currently actively working on some TASes? Your Projects Page isn't too clear on that. Looks like you're only planning to work on Rockman, but currently don't? Or am I reading that wrong?
at least if you got more brains than brawns. If he was more trained he might have been able to run without breaking a sweat ;)
It is a bit silly, because the results of that optimization would be mere seconds, but at least it keeps the brain occupied.
phpBB isn't the nicest code I know, their most frequent deadly sin is huuuge variable scopes without commenting the purpose of said variables.
you're forgetting a couple of things:
+ add link to ignore a user
+ add a panel to manage your ignore list
+ limit the amount of ignored users (important when trying to keep the user's ignore list in an array)
+ ignore PMs
+ ignore posts in search results
+ adjust "last post"-display and don't display new posts from ignored users
+ either display a placeholder for ignored posts (and add the needed templates), or fetch more posts from the DB to get your x posts per page
+ disable notification emails for posts from ignored users
+ stuff I probably forgot.
when done right, it's a lot of work. If you want a half-assed hacky solution, see my proposals above.
