Then why are bad games rejected here, when there clearly is a minority audience for them?
Nitpicking, but bad games aren't rejected. There are plenty of TASes of those published. What get rejected are TASes of games that (are deemed to) produce subpar TASes.
Anyways, that discussion has been held several times in the past. (Roughly, the two views are: 1) We should aim for quality and entertainment. 2) Every game deserves a TAS because somebody will have had played it and would probably want to see it TASed.)
(I can't even recall what they were named back then but I know it wasn't TAS... time attack I think?)
During the first couple years of the site they were called by different names, but mostly "timeattacks" because Morimoto's SMB3 video was called a "timeattack". However, it was not long before a name change was deemed necessary to avoid confusion with both unassisted speedruns and the "timeattack modes" of certain racing (and similar) games, and there was a nice precedent in the Doom speedrunning community which predated even the tasvideos (well, nesvideos back then) site: There was a branch of the Doom speedrunning community named TAS-Doom (TAS standing for "Tools-Assisted Speedrun").
Back then the term change met some resistance. (I remember some ridiculous arguments back then, such as some people claiming there's a difference between "timeattack" and "time attack", one of them meaning the "against-the-clock mode in racing games" and the other meaning the same as "TAS". I don't even remember which was supposed to mean which. Yeah, it was ridiculous.)
C is a pretty commonly used programming language in small embedded systems. However, the NES is quite a really small embedded system, especially compared to modern embedded systems for which programs are typically written in C, even if they are limited eg. in the amount of RAM (a typical "very small" embedded system will usually have at least 64 kilobytes of RAM to play with, usually more, while the NES has only 2 kilobytes IIRC).
I can perfectly believe that C can be used to write NES programs, especially if you have a competent optimizing compiler. However, I bet it requires quite significantly taking into account the limitations of the system (both the very limited amount of RAM and CPU speed). 2 kilobytes of RAM is not a lot to work with. (At least the program itself can be much larger. I think there are some NES games that approach the 4-megabyte barrier.)
I could somewhat understand that image if those products were offered for free. In other words, it would be like "you are getting all this for free, yet you are protesting that the corporations must get their money from somewhere in order to produce them; you are biting the hand that feeds you". That's BS, of course.
Corporations should make business. They make and sell products, they make a profit from selling those products, and that's it. They have no business lobbying the government for their own benefit. The government should be run by the people, not by corporations.
Besides, it's not the corporations that manufacture goods that are the major reason for the economic crisis. The major culprit are those corporations that don't manufacture anything at all, and instead base their entire business strategy in making money with money, nothing else. Basically they are just getting money without providing anything in return. In other words, they are just a sinkhole where money goes in and from which nothing comes out. The problem is aggravated by them being so big and powerful that they directly affect how the economy and the government is run.
One would think that being a fan of Twilight, you would enjoy discussing it, but apparently not.
I asked you to quote me showing the attitude of "worshiping the majority view", and "being a fan", but you failed to answer that challenge. Here, let me help you:
Warp wrote:
I really can't understand what's wrong with the Twilight series. They might not be the best movies in history, but I just can't see how they are "crappy".
That's everything I have said about my opinion on the Twilight movies. Maybe it's just me, but that doesn't sound like something a fanatic fanboy who worships the brainless masses would write. And if you review what I have written about MLP, it's only slightly more positive. I still expect you to give quotations where I say otherwise if you keep making these claims.
Warp wrote:
Well, I'm amused that you are projecting, and don't even notice that.
Much like the term "ad hominem", you seem unfamiliar with what "projecting" actually means.
In this case, I was writing about Transformers and made a throw-away remark that it was similar to other brain-dead Hollywood franchises, "like Twilight, for instance".
Perhaps if you hadn't ignored what I was responding to, and deliberately cut it out in your quote above, you would have understood that I was saying that your claim "I'm amused by how desperately you're trying to rationalize this" is psychological projection. You are accusing me of doing something that you yourself are furiously engaging in.
You turned that throw-away sentence clause into a huge post about how maligned and misjudged Twilight was.
Ok, it has become clear that you are either trolling, or there's something wrong with you. The post you are referring to, the one I made as a response to your "throw-away sentence about twilight" was two paragraphs long, one of them quite short, the other medium-sized. If you consider this "a huge post" then you are either deliberately trying to troll, or you have some kind of problem.
There's a difference between subjectively attacking an author's character ("she's an idiot!") and noting factual points (she was a high school drop-out and teen mom, she never worked, and was a housewife) and how it effected her writings.
"Noting facts and how it effected her writings" is subjective. You can't measure how someone's life affects someone's writings on an absolute scale. It will always be your opinion. Arguing that what kind of person she is affects her writing negatively is an ad hominem. You are not evaluating the writings on their own right, but arguing that they are bad because of what kind of person the author is.
Personally, I'm amused by how desperately you're trying to rationalize this, though.
Well, I'm amused that you are projecting, and don't even notice that.
This mirrors your argumentation in the "My Little Pony" topic; instead of talking about what you liked or didn't like about something, you're too busy concentrating on what the majority of people thought about it.
I actually find the peripheral fandom phenomenon more interesting than the show itself (although the show isn't half-bad), so it's natural that I discuss said phenomenon.
Btw, "too busy" for what? Just curious.
In other words, you don't seem to have an individual opinion of your own; you've given it up in order to worship the view of some nameless, faceless majority. Sad.
Can you please quote my opinion on MLP and the Twilight series? Because I myself don't remember having such an attitude. Perhaps I'm getting senile.
I'm not as big an expert as you are and thus hesitate to make any big claims, but on an anecdotal level, I believe "hype" tends to make people overvalue something's worth, not devalue yet.
The second word in the expression "hype backlash" isn't there just for decoration. It has a meaning.
Keep in mind that Stephanie Meyer is essentially an uneducated housewife who popped out a few kids as a teen, has no life or work experience, and wrote her series where Bella is an avatar for herself and the dreamy, hunky guy she wishes she had married.
That's an ad-hominem if I ever saw one.
I still think that hype is a significant factor in people's attitudes. I'm pretty certain that if these movies were not popular, but just some obscure indie films, most people who would watch them would just shrug and say "rather average, not my style" rather than bashing it so hard.
It's the same as with eg. the Star Wars prequel trilogy: It's because of the hype and the expectations that people call them "utter shit". If they were completely independent movies with no previous history and subsequent expectations, the average person (who currently bashes the movies) would just think they are average.
Of course one could go to great detail in analyzing these movies and find all kinds of flaws in them and reasons why they suck so much. However, you can do this with any movie if you try hard enough, even those that are considered universal all-time masterpieces. Just cherry-pick the bad, exaggerate a bit here and there, and you can easily draw a picture where the movie is horrendous garbage.
And the worst part? Of the 180-odd games I own across five consoles and PC/Mac, I've only ever properly beaten about 50. That's....rather sad actually. I need to put more energy into finishing games.
When I bought my first PC (that was in the mid-90's) and started buying games, I had the principle of "if I am paying this much money for a game, it better last a long time", so I really took my sweet time to complete games. I really hated it if I finished a game in just a week or so. It felt like a waste of money.
This had the negative side-effect that I got bored of many games and left them unfinished. "To be finished later." That "later" never came with most games.
At some point the feeling got gradually inverted: Not finishing the games started to feel more of a waste of money than finishing them, even if finishing the game took just a few days. Hence I changed my attitude completely: When I buy a game, I finish it before playing anything else (on the same system, at least). I only make an exception with games that happen to be so utterly bad, boring or unplayable, that playing them is a pain. (There are only a few of those so far, and they have all felt like ripoffs.)
At some points I have taken the project to finish those old games I didn't back then. Examples of such games include Grim Fandango, Curse of Monkey Island, Myst 3 (all great games, btw), and others.
Ditto for Twilight and every other brain-dead, crappy Hollywood franchise.
I really can't understand what's wrong with the Twilight series. They might not be the best movies in history, but I just can't see how they are "crappy".
My bet is that they aren't crappy, but this just a combination of chick-flick + hype backlash. I also bet many people are dissing the movies without actually seeing them. (OTOH, many of them are so prejudiced that even if they saw them, they wouldn't change their opinion as a matter of principle. After all, admitting you are wrong, even to yourself, is hard.)
I have to disagree with the decision of obsoleting the two-game run with this. It's just a fact that a two-game run is easier to follow than a three-game run, no matter how much more technically impressive the latter might be. The obsoletion also means that the X1+X2 run will never be improved (because there's no way it will ever be published over the triple-run), which is a shame.
Well, I'm still waiting for some other double-run (preferably one where the synchronization between the games is visibly clearer). For some reason this doesn't seem to be a very popular objective for tasers.
The idea never lost its relevance, though, because severely limiting the amount of categories is a persistent problem that hurts the site in many ways. The "we don't need many categories" mentality lost its charm back when standards of TASing rose to a point that makes subsequent improvement tiring and completely unwelcome for beginners. I.e. back in 2007.
I suppose the idea with limiting the number of parallel publication categories for one game is to avoid having tons of completely arbitrary categories which add little to the existing runs (or even if they are different enough, they are not all that interesting).
This might be possible to alleviate if a grouping of runs of the same game were ever to be implemented. They could be organized into subgroups based on the "relevance" of the run. We could have the "main" runs (eg. the "main any%" and the "main 100%") and then "secondary" categories (which might get their own subgroups depending on what they do).
I think I can't see a relation to what you're saying with what I asked, or you guys are still missing my point. :)
A spaceship is moving at 200 thousand meters per second east, while another object is moving 200 thousand meters per second west. To the crew in the ship the other object is moving at 400 thousand meters per second, faster than light, even though they can't see it. No?
Your question was understood and answered the first time you asked it. Please try to understand the answers.
Granted, relativity is not intuitive because it does not conform to everyday experience. The world just starts acting "weird" when something starts moving at very great speeds (much greater than what we are accustomed to in everyday life). And this is not just a hypothesis, it's a measured fact.
The problem here is that I asked what would one "see". Is that the problem? That you can't see something traveling faster than c, but something CAN travel faster than c? What I meant was if something can travel faster than c (relative to something else), not if you can see it. Sorry about that.
In special relativity nothing can travel faster than c. No matter who measures what, nothing travels faster than c. (One way of stating this is that if you send a photon towards something, and leave afterwards to "chase" it, you can never outrun that photon. You can never reach the destination faster than that photon will. And photons will always travel at c in vacuum.)
In general relativity things get a bit more complicated because space is not cartesian and the geometry of space can actually change. The distance between two points can increase faster than c, but this still doesn't break the principles of special relativity because nothing can travel between those two points faster than c.
I have another question.... What if I'm traveling at 66% of c and someone else is traveling at 66% of c in the oposite direction? I will see him traveling faster than c?
let's assume i'm on a spaceship travelling at c and I start to run (about 10 Km/h) someone from the outside will see that I am not moving because the time inside the spaceship will be stopped from the point of view of the person outside the spaceship.
Actually I think that the outside observer will also see your spaceship compressed to zero length, which is also why he doesn't see you moving.
Interesting question: If you move at c, does that mean you can travel from any point in the universe to another in zero seconds (from your own point of view)? If the answer is yes, how does this correlate with the so-called cosmological horizon of an expanding universe (which basically means you can't travel from one point to all possible points in the universe, only to another point inside the observable portion of the universe)?
Btw, for the record: This run is very good and I like it a lot. I'm just holding my vote until I can decide whether the in-game timer goal is sensible or not.
In theory. However, when is the last time that an improvement over an early run of a crappy game has gotten rejected? By your reasoning, said improvement could be rejected if it's retroactively decided that the game stinks, right?
This is mainly a problem because of the informal "no unpublications" policy of the site. The question is, AFAIK, open and not formally decided.
