In honest, NitroGenesis and Sonikkustar should be mentioned first. How did they need to change lower and lower? If both of them didn't have intent to change lower and lower, would they think that author felt something bad? Additionally, I think that rates frequently changed are out of spite.
I hope you to remove all unequal rates to me or from me for me, please.
I think you are missing the point. It's a question of attitude.
Anybody is entitled to an opinion, and hence anybody can rate movies however they like. However, for the sake of the site and the community, it would be preferable if people were honest when rating. In other words, they rated what they honestly believe the run deserves based on how they view the run itself, without letting ancillary details (such as who the author of the run is) color their opinion.
Rating someone's run low because they rated your run low is not being honest. It's being childish.
I don't think a minimally divergent sequence exists. "any" subsequence seems a too strong argument.
Now you'll have to prove that.
(I guess that the proof might go in a somewhat similar way as proving that there's no smallest real number larger than zero.)
Suppose we have, for example: A=4, B=5 and C=1. We can write:
C = B - A
C(B - A) = (B - A)2
CB - CA = B2 - 2AB + A2
CB - CA - A2 = B2 - 2AB
AB + CB - CA - A2 = B2 - 2AB + AB
AB + CB - CA - A2 = B2 - AB
AB - CA - A2 = B2 - CB - AB
A(B - C - A) = B(B - C - A)
A = B
Where did C disappear? We end up with 4 = 5.
Cave Story needs a star. It's among the best TASes on the site.
Even at the risk of sounding like a broken record, I would like to remind that stars do not denote "best TASes" but "if you don't know what to watch, try these first" (iow. a varied representation of what TASvideos has to offer).
Regardless, given that this is the first Windows TAS, a very popular free game, the quality of the TAS is very high (in both entertainment and technical aspects), and people will certainly be interested in watching this, I second the star nomination.
But seriously, I actually did this as my graduation project at Texas Tech University.
I wish I could have gotten my degree with such a cool project (rather than a boring programming project about a graph manipulation algorithm implementation, as I did). Now I'm jealous... :P
I would have never believed that a tasbot could be built for such a modern console as the N64. It's awesome.
Of course the little skeptic in me always makes be slightly cautious. After all, believing in the veracity of the video is a question of trusting the person who made it. Basically the only way to make absolutely sure that the video is legit is for an admin or a trusted contributor/member of the site to either go there in person and verify it, or build the device himself and test it.
Because if you use a fullscreen but not with max resolution then everything will look goofy, try 640x480 fullscreen on a 16:9 screen thats suppose to run 1920x1080, it has nothing to do with physics, it will just look bad, stretched, and ugly.
It may well be because I'm still using a CRT, but I don't have too much of a problem of going as low as 800x600 fullscreen (I have a 19-inch screen). Small details get pixelated, but with most games that's not such a huge drawback, and the picture looks nice enough. Admittedly 640x480 starts being perhaps a bit too low. (OTOH windowed mode doesn't change the problem of disappearing detail due to low resolution...)
Also, consider running games in windowed mode (for sonic generations you need to use an external program to window it, but it works fairly well) rather than trying fullscreen with maxed or high settings, as you'll get better performance.
Uh? It's not the physical size that matters, it's the resolution. Graphics cards support different fullscreen resolutions.
You know what's funny? Back in 2000, when I got my first computer, assembling a good, balanced gaming system cost around $1000 (sans the software). Hardware has changed, games have changed, but assembling a good, balanced gaming system still costs around $1000.
If there's equilibrium anywhere, there it is.
OTOH, the cost curve is very exponential. In other words, if you are willing to compromise just slightly and not get the absolute top-of-the-line hardware, you can easily get an almost-top-of-the-line computer for a fraction of the price.
In other words, if you eg. buy a graphics card that is half as fast as the current best (but still way faster than the best 5 years ago), it may well cost one tenth of the price of the best one.
Of course in order to make such compromises one has to resist the urge of thinking like "it's only half as fast as the best one, that's nothing! It will barely be able to run any modern game!" In reality even the slightly older, but quite cheap, cards are able to run modern games pretty decently. They might get obsoleted faster, but OTOH you only invested on tenth of the money, so you can buy a better one for that same price in a year or two, and you are still way ahead in the benefit/cost ratio (compared to if you had bought the best card right away).
With due respect proceed ahead with this bellow information and send the $165 to us
The sad thing about this? Some scam victims, who have become fully aware that they have been scammed of thousands and even tens of thousands of dollars in the past, will send another $165 to the scammers in the hopes that maybe this time it will work.
It's a combination of sunk cost fallacy and outright naïveté.
A) Invest in a new card now (Probably the 6870) and regret it in 3-5 months when I could have saved money on the same card or gotten a new one
That's an endless loop. It's not like they will publish a new card and announce "this is it, this is the last card we will ever publish". There will always be new cards announced immediately after each other.
I checked your examples and yes, these are trills and has nothing to do with arpeggios. I'm 100% sure that there are more games with trills than arpeggios on NES, I think that my examples also have this (except super mario)
According to wikipedia, a trill is the rapid alternation between two adjacent notes (either a semitone or a full tone apart). This is not the same as arpeggio, which is the rapid alternation between three (or more) notes, freely apart (usually forming a chord).
As there might be some slight confusion about what I meant when I used the term "arpeggio", it's the trick very typical in 8-bit chip music (used in systems with very limited sound hardware) of alternating very rapidly between several (usually three) notes in order to "simulate" more sound channels than there really are. Much more rapidly than what "arpeggio" originally means in classical/traditional music. This gives a very distinctive "chip music" sound quality to the music.
I already mentioned this example in my original post, but here are a few more: Xenon (Spectrum 128), Commando (C64), Cobra (C64), Renegade (Spectrum 128), Ninja Massacre (Spectrum 128).
Both of these approaches increase the ROM size by a nonzero amount.
Given that, unlike RAM, the maximum ROM size on a NES cartridge is absolutely humongous (considering when the NES was released) I don't think that's a problem. (I think some games took up to 4 megabytes. Is that the physical maximum size of a NES cartridge?)
