Why should this run not be accepted, just like sonic advance 3
Precedents might work in the judiciary system, but I think that doesn't apply here. One would have to show that
1) the situation with sonic advance 3 was the same as with this run, and
2) accepting sonic advance 3 was not a mistake.
Past mistakes don't justify repeating them.
I'm not saying this run should not be published. I'm just pointing out a side point.
IMHO if using the pause screen a few times can make the run shorter (in real-time) then it's not annoying at all. It would bother me more that the run would be longer just because the pause screen was avoided.
But whatever.
4. Avoid the Pause screen completely (possible due to point 3)
If avoiding the pause screen saves time (real-time), then that goal is a bit moot, isn't it? Anything that saves time should be an *implicit* goal to aim for, without having to explicitly state it, IMO. It would be a bit like saying "one of the goals of this run is to not to stop for no reason, which would waste time". That's not really a *goal*, it's a self-evident tactic to make the run shorter and doesn't really need to be specified explicitly.
If, however, avoiding the pause screen actually makes the run longer (in real-time) and it's done just for the sake of "avoiding the pause screen", then it sounds like an artificial goal, which I think the rules speak against. There's no big value in a "goal" like that. It doesn't really add to the run.
(If avoiding the pause screen made absolutely no difference in the length of the movie, then it would be a curiosity, and I suppose it would be just ok. However, I believe that's not the case here?)
With that recent Turok: Dinosaur Hunter submission by nfq, I voted yes on the current question because I did find it entertaining. Then in my post with my comment, I noted that if the question were, "do I think this movie should be published", I would vote no because I didn't think it was up to the site's standards of quality.
I believe that the spirit of the poll question is "did you like this movie so much that you think it should be published?". It's just shortened. Too much.
I don't really understand why some people are taking the poll question so literally when it should be quite clear what it really is asking (ie. "should this be published or not?").
That's one reason why IMHO the question should be more specific.
Your post is incomprehensible in so many levels that I don't even know where to start. I don't even understand if it's some kind of obscure humor I just don't get, or if it's something else.
I don't post here much, but I disagree that the run has an "undefined goal." The goal is to complete the game as fast as possible (ingame time) with a reasonable amount of delays due to pause screens.
That "reasonable" is precisely what makes the goal undefined. How do you define "reasonable"?
One difficulty this imposes is to decide what kind of movie could perhaps obsolete this one. If someone submits a movie with a shorter in-game timer completion but longer real-time completion, would it be acceptable? If yes, how much longer in real-time can it be before it becomes unacceptable? What if it's the other way around, ie. shorter real-time completion but longer in-game completion? Acceptable? Not acceptable? If acceptable, how much is too much?
If the answer is that it's left to the judges to decide, then it means that there's no clear, well-defined goal in the run, but it's just a performance which is estimated by a panel of judges on a "feels better/worse" basis.
IF people who know more about the game than I do think this run is significantly different to warrant its own category, AND they can convince the people who make decisions that this should be published alongside Hero's movie, I would support that.
If this movie is published I will certainly watch it with interest. I'm just not completely sure about the sensibility of the goal of the movie which, if I haven't understood completely wrongly, seems to be some kind of mix between minimizing the game's internal timer and real-time, without really perfecting either. The actual goal seems a bit undefined. I'm wondering if this won't set some kind of problematic precedent. (I envision future arguments of the type "hey, that supermetroid video was published, why not this one?")
Another example is the Mega Man series. You’re presented with 8 levels with boss robots at the end, each holding weapons which make all the other levels easier. The path is yours to choose.
Personally I consider the Megaman series to be almost completely linear.
Often when people talk about linearity and non-linearity, they are referring to freedom of exploration, not so much to the freedom of performing a set of (completely linear) tasks in a free order.
One problem with the vast majority of modern FPS games is that they completely lack the element of exploration. You can't deviate from the main path designed in the level. Levels are basically long corridors which you run from one end to the other, with no possibility of exploration at all.
Many of the older 3D games had more of an exploration element to them. You had a large level which consisted of large open areas with tons of possible places you could go to. Passing the level usually consisted in actually *finding* the exit, which usually required you to first find the way to get to the exit through a series of puzzles and such. This was exploration. You had to find the way. It was not trivial. You had to explore the level and try things. You had to solve puzzles.
In modern FPS games there's no exploration, there are no puzzles, you don't have to find anything. You just run along a long corridor and kill all the monsters.
Sure, in a game like Megaman there's a certain element of non-linearity because you can complete levels in a free order. However, since the levels are completely linear and there's no exploration element in them, I do not consider it very non-linear. You just have a very long corridor split into 8 parts, and the only thing you can choose is the combination from which the one single corridor is built from those parts.
I wonder if it could be a good idea to create a new forum for people to post notification about omissions or things that need to be fixed. It could be easier for the editors to see them that if they are posted here.
Slower movies which improves entertainment have been accepted before, see Mortal Kombat 2.
That's more of an exception than a rule, though.
With Mortal Kombat 2 specifically, it makes a whole lot of sense to show the most convoluted and glitched special moves as possible, regardless of how much time it requires to perform them (but still avoiding sloppy play, ie. waiting for no good reason). It's just a game where it makes a lot of sense. It can hardly be called a tool-assisted *speedrun*, as it's more like a tool-assisted machinima.
Whether "minimize the game's own time counter" is an acceptable goal is a rather interesting question, especially if it really is so that you could minimize that counter at great expense of wallclock time (by abusing some pause screens or such). Personally I would certainly not want to watch a video which is 1 hour longer than it could be, just to save a few seconds of the game's internal time counter.
You could also try VirtualDub. It's a bit hard to use at first, but once you get the grip of it, it's quite handy. (It's not a video editor though, just a format converter with some video filters. Much like mencoder.)
Ⓔ I lack firsthand experience, but I find it alarming if such technology is used on consumer products. Since early childhood I have considered it to be within my rights to reverse-engineer thoroughly what I possess. Attempts to circumvent that defy my sense of justice.
You don't even have to consider it because Finnish law gives you the undisputed right to reverse engineer programs. It even explicitly says that an usage license stating otherwise has no effect on this right.
(Of course right to reverse engineer does not give rights to use pirated software nor to break copyright.)
Dear xebra,
Why do you bother repeating the exact same questions atheists have been asking again and again, millions of times, non-stop for centuries, especially since the motive behind presenting these questions is not to honestly get an answer but to critique someone else's beliefs? No answer Bisqwit can give you will make you content because, as all atheists, you are not really asking these questions to get an answer but to critique his beliefs and express your dissenting opinion.
Do you honestly think that Bisqwit, or any believer for that matter, hasn't heard those questions countless times? The real purpose of those questions is moot. It's not like you were the first person to present them.
Repeating the same questions again and again is pointless. You are certainly not the first one to present them. You are just repeating what others have said. There's no originality. The point behind those question has already been presented millions of times. Repeating this point has no value and is moot. You are not seeking for answers, so why do you even present these points as questions? Why can't you simply express your opinion with regular sentences instead of questions?
If I were Bisqwit I would skip even trying to answer those questions. There are two reasons for this: Trying to answer them would only be repeating what other believers have been saying for as long as the questions have been presented, and repeating those answers here would be exactly as moot as the questions themselves. Secondly, answering to the question is simply submitting to the provocation and it only asks for a fruitless discussion which will lead nowhere.
Please skip it. It would be boring and it would degrade the interest of this thread.
I know what taunting is, but to be sure, I looked it up:
taunt·ed, taunt·ing, taunts
To reproach in a mocking, insulting, or contemptuous manner.
I'm honestly not sure in what way you think the questions asked are taunting...
I used it with the meaning "to drive or incite, to provoke", and the "semi" part was meant to mean like "half-seriously", "tongue in cheek".
Perhaps "taunting" is not the exact word for that, but it was what I meant.
