The tip of the iceberg: The beginning or most apparent part of a story or situation.
I thought that had more or less a literal meaning. "It's only the tip of the iceberg", that is, "this is just a small part of the whole thing, which is huge" (could be figurative, talking about eg. some situation or an idea, or literal, talking about a physical object or thing).
Sorry to revive a really old thread, but is it really so that this game is simply not suitable for TASing? (Even if it's a fixed-speed scroller, a 100% kills version might be interesting, like with Gradius3.)
Voting "Yes" on 3) should be rare, and should be for a good reason like "is not tool-assisted" (this seems like an obvious requirement on a site called "Tool Assisted Speedruns/Superplay movies".). In fact, I can't really think of any other good reason.
Any breaking of rules, obviously (such as not beating the unassisted record, using hacked roms, gamegenie codes...)
There are some English idioms which are a bit amusing, if not even illogical. For example:
Knock yourself out -- Go ahead / please begin
Tell me about it -- I fully agree (basically meaning the exact opposite, ie. "you don't have to tell me about it")
Maybe there should be *two* voting categories instead of one:
1) Did you like this movie? (Please explain why.)
2) Do you think this movie should be published? (If not, and especially if you gave different votes on these two questions, explain why.)
It could be perfectly conceivable that someone liked the movie but still thinks it doesn't deserve to be published, perhaps because the game is his personal favorite from childhood but not very interesting to the public at large. Or maybe they *liked* the movie, but they still think it could be improved (ie. there's sloppy play or unabused tricks).
How exactly is it possible for the motor to reverse direction like that without breaking things through stress and friction?
How do you think a regular helicopter is able to move forwards, backwards, sideways and even up and down? (Mind you, the rotation speed of the rotors is always the same.)
Maybe, but that kind of news falls into the same category as the thousands of similar technology news during the last 40 years: Enormous promises, but it never realizes. (Or, alternatively, developing the implementation takes so long that "regular" technology gets past the promised innovations tenfold in the meantime).
I'm sure that if all the technological news about new amazing discoveries which will allow increasing performance/capacity/whatever by several orders of magnitude at a fraction of the price, but which never realized, were collected into one book, it would be thicker than the phonebook of a big city.
Sure, maybe *this* time it will be different. Maybe *this* one will realize itself. I'm not very optimistic, though.
What the shit. These RC helicopters seem to completely defenestrate the laws of physics. o_0
When you know how helicopters work (regardless of size), it's not all that incredible, but it's certainly a marvelous show of engineering (to build a device which can do that) and skill (to control it).
USA is the best country in the world. my bro is going there too, but in august. it might be fun to be there, but i don't know what i would do there.
alden wrote:
laptops
i don't like laptops because the battery only lasts for a few minutes. if it would last 500 hours, i would consider buying one. i heard that they've made a discovery that will make the battery last for 40 hours or so, but it's still not enough for me. hopefully the oilcompanies will allow free energy machines soon.
It's amusing just how much trolling you succeeded in squeezing into such a short post...
THEN AGAIN, this movie is kind of bad, and there is a much better demonstration movie posted on youtube which was made by groobo.
I think this fact alone should mean an automatic rejection, because there's a rule stating exactly that: "A speed-oriented movie must beat all existing records."
Note that it says "must", not "should".
Yeah, magic always involves tricking the viewers, of course, but people consider using camera tricks too cheap because they don't involve skill nor ingenious planning.
Btw, Criss Angel is often accused of using camera trickery and full-cast audience (I mean every single one in the "audience" are paid actors) in his TV show for most of his stunts. The accusation is, thus, basically that he cheats the TV viewers into believing that it's a real live magic trick which would look identical live than it does on TV, while it isn't.
I really don't understand why it's precisely Criss Angel who is so hated. Other street magicians, including David Blaine and David Copperfield perform stunts on the streets which are at least equally amazing, yet for some reason they never get accused of using camera trickery. Only Angel is.
The thing is, most (if not all) the tricks Angel does on the street are known stunts, and he himself performs them on stage as well (with paying live audience and without cameras). There's no reason why he suddenly would resort to camera trickery when he moves to the street.
Btw, here's what snopes.com has to say about this trick in particular:
http://www.snopes.com/photos/people/pullapart.asp
And yeah, the Finnish entry in that tipping guide looks like guesswork by a foreigner. It is not correct.
Yes, tipping here is, as far as I can tell, completely unknown of. It wouldn't even surprise me if it would be, at least technically speaking, illegal (I don't know if it is).
(I don't mean tipping itself being illegal, but if some establishment had a custom of regularly receiving tips, at least tax officials would be interested in that, assuming it was legal at all.)
I really don't know what they do if (and very probably when) some tourists who don't know better leave tips at Finnish restaurants.
I also feel that if you vote no on this movie, you should vote no on the optimized run if it ever gets released because there will undoubtly be small timer savers here and there discovered later (see super metroid or mario games).
There's a categorical difference.
People should vote "no" on a new Super Metroid movie *if* the author skipped using glitches and other shortcuts knowingly and for no good reason, simply because of laziness. And this is, in fact, the current voting standard, as far as I can tell. (There probably are concrete examples.)
However, you are talking about a case where the author tried is very best, and as far as anyone can tell, his run is as optimal as the author could do. This is a completely different situation, and there's no reason to not to vote "yes" if the run is of sufficient quality. Everybody knows that no run is absolutely perfect, but as long as nobody can say how it's imperfect there's little reason to not to give a yes vote.
(Also, we are not talking about shaving off a few frames here and there. We are talking about skipping entire glitch abuses.)
While publishing as a concept demo is a good idea, one small problem is that the site does not (as far as I can tell) very clearly distinguish between concept demos and "normal" publications, and the concept demo may well pass for a regular publication. In that sense it doesn't really solve the dilemma itself.
One thing I know about the American culture is that if you get into a conversation with an American, you should pay attention to his/her name, and use that name from time to time when you talk with him/her. I have been told that some may even consider it rude if you never speak to them by their name.
OTOH, I have to admit that I don't know what the customs are for using first and last names. That is, if you are talking to a John Smith, in which situations you should use "Mr. Smith" and when it's ok to just say "John".
Let me express two points about this whole dilemma:
1: Assume that currently there was no LoZ:OoT movie published. Would this submission be acceptable, knowing the suboptimalities it has (acknowledged by the author himself)? I guess the answer is no: The suboptimalities don't conform to the current basic standards of the site.
So my question is: If this is the case, why would the fact that there exists a past publication affect this decision in any way? Should a suboptimal run be replaced with another suboptimal run, which doesn't still meet the minimum quality standards of TASing? Should past history of TASing of a game affect its future history?
2: Think about these two hypothetical cases:
a) Someone submits a frame-precise movie, where every single frame has been optimized. However, someone else points out that there exists a glitch which would save time. The author of the movie didn't know about this glitch at the time he made the movie.
b) Someone submits a movie which has glaring suboptimalities in it, and he readily admits that he didn't bother to perfect the run, and knowingly skipped abusing some time-saving glitches, not because he didn't know about them, but because of laziness.
Now, ponder about these questions:
1) Which one of those cases is more "forgivable"?
2) In the first case, would the movie still be published?
If your answer to the second question was "no" (as I believe would be the case), then why should the b) case be published? Is the b) case somehow more worthy to be published?
I nominate the future to-be-published LoZ:OoT TAS for a lifetime vaporware award: Everyone has been expecting it for like forever, and everyone knows it's coming (some time in the distant future) and everyone knows it will be awesome. This future TAS practically obsoleted the currently published TAS before it was even published.
Like all good vaporware, also demos of this one have been shown from time to time, but it has yet to reach gold status (probably for a long, long time).
