Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1236)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11269
Location: RU
jlun2 wrote:
I agree, but at the same time I really hope this doesn't lead to some games basically with no full game TAS and only individual level ones (with perfect RNG that would otherwise not be possible if full run due to luck manip time loss).
I think having a lot of IL submissions makes a full run more probable, and better, compared to having ILs banned.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1236)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11269
Location: RU
"no clips" sounds very good, but I still need to watch the current 2 movies. The current pub would be a weak Moon until a "no clips" submission happens and obsoletes it. Crash41596 what do you think?
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1236)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11269
Location: RU
Posted!
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1236)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11269
Location: RU
jlun2 wrote:
Maybe make a new category for communities of that game to judge themselves? Most of the games have very little community, so this problem would be concentrated on a relatively small number of franchises.
If one game community wants to accept a flood of meme runs while another doesn't, probably just let them decide.
Agreed. If it's just a platform for community content, let that community handle it.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1236)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11269
Location: RU
Arcade machines have a lot of variations and some of them are similar to home consoles, but labeling each arcade machine differently will result in complete mess IMO. Having all VS games as Arcade makes the most sense to me, and then they can be linked from the NES version runs.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1236)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11269
Location: RU
This is clearer indeed, and I don't have enough gaming outlook to recall games where the main menu has tweaks to the same global mode. I'm afraid there may be, and since we're switching from hard rule based approach to guideline based, it's better to have some helpful list of things defining the spirit of our rule: things that make a mode make sense to be its own branch regardless. Things to look for when we're not exactly sure. Things that make it obvious it's a separate mode. Known example is when a mode is a separate level set.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1236)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11269
Location: RU
arkiandruski wrote:
In short. I don't believe Dragon Gate Glitch by itself is enough to warrant a new branch, but Dragon Gate Glitch plus the skips mentioned in the previous paragraph would be.
Is there a way to unite them under some common name? Major skip glitch has to be a single technique that skips a lot, rather than many different ones that skip a bit.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1236)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11269
Location: RU
Samsara wrote:
If we reject that theoretical TAS, it has to be with sound, agreeable reasoning that the author agrees with as much as we do.
This is incredibly true! How else are we ever gonna inspire people to make better movies? Only by showing them a better path towards their own goal!
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1236)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11269
Location: RU
ikuyo wrote:
I think this problem ultimately solves itself because it has to be justified in video submissions. As in "you can submit whatever you want, just be prepared to explain it and make it interesting for judges".
The discussion is about allowing all modes for Standard. I don't think it's a good idea to make acceptability depend on how well an author can explain it. That doesn't feel appropriate for "common, objective goals" that should be "as objective as possible". I don't even know what the spirit of the rule would be, so I won't be able to direct the conversation in case people have contradicting opinions.
FitterSpace wrote:
This is how I've always thought about it. I feel that the workbench does a good job of filtering out bad or uninteresting submissions already, without worrying about movie rules. In general, I think rules about the content of a TAS should be less restrictive so there are more good TASes being submitted and accepted to the site. But if a TAS in the workbench is too similar to a published one, people will be quick to point that out no matter what the rules say. So I don't think there needs to be a rule about that because the audience will decide anyway if it's not interesting or different enough for the site.
Then I don't see the reason to exclude character choice from allowed goals. But again, we can't allow all modes for standard and then say "actually we'll be deciding fully from feedback what is actually acceptable, every time". One of the fundamental problems with Vault and tiers in general that led to revamping the entire system to depend on feedback less is that it's VERY hard to get enough definitive feedback every time it's needed. And people who can be convinced to post still don't represent opinion of the entire community, so next year the feedback on the same situation can be completely different because different people happened to be around.
Tiers were replaced with classes to mitigate the "borderline hell" situation, when people just can't agree on something that in general makes sense. But whether or not something makes sense still has to be decided on a more generic level, only then it will make sense to accept it without unnecessary scrutiny.
Personally I can't say that blindly accepting all modes makes sense to me. And only accepting those that get feedback agreement, means it doesn't feel like an obvious and popular, standard goal.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1236)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11269
Location: RU
If there's no savestates then how do you redo?
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1236)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11269
Location: RU
ViGadeomes wrote:
I took my time to think about it and used as a basis the definition that we can find in french here.
This is my proposition to define a game mode :
game modes are the different ways the user can choose to play from the menu before starting to play.
Depending on the context, it can designate the number of simultaneous players or the type of gameplay sought (when the game offers a choice).
This fix the problem of fighting games but can maybe also add the difficulty choice problem in the discussion... This is only a WIP and this needs some discussions and feedback.
Difficulty, as well as all sorts of options like game speed, colors, audio. What if some option allows a high number of variants of the same stat? Do we allow every variant? On top of every other variant of every other option?
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1236)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11269
Location: RU
ViGadeomes wrote:
feos wrote:
How many currently published movies have this NMG extension alongside the goal that has major skips?
I don't think we can use as an argument movies that are already published on the site as it is irrevelant to the discussion because :
It's relevant to the discussion about goals allowed for the Standard class, because the nature of the class is allowing common and objective (basically standard) goals:
MovieRules wrote:
Standard class houses a majority of the movies on the site. It contains speedrun records with common, objective goals. Goal choice should be as objective as possible.
ViGadeomes wrote:
First, we need to define a context where the NMG full completion could apply :
- A game where a Major-Skip Glitch is known
- The use of this Major-Skip glitch in a context of full completion doesn't go in conflict with the full completion goal itself.
For the second point above, I mean by this that I don't see a "all levels" run where this is the only way to define full completion to be using a Major-skip glitch. So the fastest "all levels" run which respects the full completion rules (that I mostly agree with) is without the use of this major-skip glitch as most of the full completion TASes on the site.
It is then irrevelant to take as conter-example movies where full completion is in conflict with the use of a Major-Skip glitch.
So there isn't a lot of movies where a Major-Skip glitch and full completion could apply.
feos wrote:
MNG full completion is being considered for the future. The question about it and your other suggestion is, is it a standard goal at this point? Is it common, popular, clear, obvious?
In the context eplained above, I think NMG full completion is a standard goal and that it is common, popular, clear and obvious. Both of thesegames are a good example of this if we do a NMG full completion in them.
If it was common and popular, then we'd have a lot of movies of it in Moons, and a lot of movies of it rejected (or obsoleted) for not being entertaining enough.
To put it differently, can't we just unobsolete those that didn't have the MSG and have them in Moons?
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1236)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11269
Location: RU
We'll need documentation on how it all works and what it can do. The more detailed the better.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1236)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11269
Location: RU
I'm getting this with latest firefox:
And I can't open it in Opera or Chrome at all.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1236)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11269
Location: RU
ThunderAxe31 wrote:
But that's not what we do for GB/GBC/GBA games: we use the system naming depending on the game itself, not on the system in which is played.
Those are ways to run a game on an actual device. Originally the game runs on whatever device it was designed for, and then on some newer ones thanks to backwards compatibility modes. I don't know if it's possible to insert an NES game into a VS Arcade machine, or vice versa.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1236)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11269
Location: RU
DrD2k9 wrote:
1) What system do we want to consider these VS Nintendo ROMs?
While the VS game ROMs (at least this one) run on BizHawk under NES emulation, their purpose was for Arcade cabinet use. I feel that the site needs to make a definitive decision on which system to consider these VS ROMs.
My personal stance would be to consider them as Arcade as that's the 'system' they were intended for even though BizHawk runs them under NES emulation.
The definitive aspect is whether it runs on actual NES. If not, it needs a different platform name.
DrD2k9 wrote:
2) Should VS ROMs be able to obsolete runs of other system/region?
This is a multi-part issue.
If it's decided that VS ROMs are to be considered Arcade and not NES system, then we'd be looking at the question of whether or not to have one system potentially obsolete a different system. I think this may have already happened in the past, but I don't know for sure.
If it's decided that VS ROMs are to be considered NES system--just a different 'region' ROM--then it's an issue of one region ROM obsoleting a different region; I know there's already precedent for this (due to one of my own US region runs being obsoleted by a JP region run of the same game).
My personal stance on this one is to lean toward more inclusivity and less obsoletion regardless of what 'system' the VS ROMs are ultimately decided to be considered. I'm one who feels that, even if a game/TAS is identical between two different systems, there's value in having a publication of both systems--if for no other reason than the possibility that some viewers may only look for a particular game on one system and not another system, because they may not know the game was ported to multiple systems.
If they have enough differences to feel as separate branches, they should not obsolete one another. If it's really the same exact game with minimal (for example, cosmetic) changes, it should obsolete.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1236)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11269
Location: RU
EZGames69 wrote:
For us publishers, this just means we have 6 less frames to work with for a publication screenshot
I don't remember having such a rule.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1236)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11269
Location: RU
Fortranm wrote:
I fail to see how this is a sign of failure by itself. It doesn’t sound surprising for a group that cares more about one game in particular and one that cares more about TASing in general to not have much overlap as the focuses and interests can be very different, especially when either side has enough size, and that’s perfectly fine.
See we're asking ourselves a question if this is exactly what is best for both communities. It's fine if it has to be that way, but who gets to decide how it is in the end? We do! All of us, as a community. We're basically rewriting the site from scratch, so it makes sense to rewrite the policies to better serve the hobby, to make it more fun if that's possible.
To answer directly, it may or may not be a sign of failure considering former (probably outdated) goals of the site, but we should also check if it makes sense to preserve this situation in the future as well.
Fortranm wrote:
The entertainment value of a thing more often than not exists in relation to the external world. If there really are 121 categories with one for each quantity of stars, one might still find each of them entertaining by themselves, but does that mean the same person in question is likely to enjoy watching all of them? Is it a good idea to include all 121 of them after all to account for the possibility of someone looking for each of them?
If uniqueness as a factor is ignored completely, we will immediately run into a paradox where a slight alteration of a highly entertaining movie is still entertaining, and the smaller the alteration is, the more “equally” entertaining they are! In fact, if we publish the current "1 key" movie again completely unchanged under the label “0 stars / low%”, it will double the amount of entertainment this site has to offer from that one movie file!
Or does it?
Uniqueness is going to remain a factor, and slight alterations of some goal may be treated as speed-entertainment tradeoffs within the same goal that's different enough from other goals.
Once again over the years the whole goal of the site was to minimize branches. Different branches could obsolete one another not even because they're nearly identical, but because there's just "too many" of them. Some of this was fixed by unobsoletions years ago. But the stated goal is still minimizing them.
So we ask ourselves if it's a good idea in general to aim for this. Isn't our goal providing room for TASers and their audience to have fun together? If there's enough people interested in working on some esoteric goal, and enough people willing to watch and enjoy it, why do we need to limit them explicitly? Only allowing the very best of the very best results in too many instances of hard TAS work to be disregarded due to formal policies that we don't know if they are still relevant after almost 2 decades.
We ask TASers to think outside the box, but we should do the same with our policies too! I'm saying this as a person who managed to keep the status quo as a senior judge for 3.5 years, while finding reasons why some rule needs tweaking and another should stay as is. Also as a person who managed to improve a few of our policies over the years, I say that if the barrier is too high, people will get exhausted and demotivated.
Fortranm wrote:
Part of what I said is in response to your argument of it being a good example with being “incredibly popular in RTA” as one of the reasons. There are plenty of games with RTA categories involving playing a game up to a certain point with the result being identical to a partial any% for most part, and again, in a lot, if not most, of these cases the factors that make the category exist for RTA in first place rely on the fact that things are done in real-time. Being “incredibly popular in RTA” is bad argument for accepting a branch for a TAS. Period.
Yeah I should say that popularity of some branch among RTA players does play a role in the end. Because people keep competing, keep finding new tricks, which makes the category still relevant in a TAS too. Since long ago there's nice synergy between the 2 scenes, so I'd like to support it more.
Fortranm wrote:
Samsara wrote:
It doesn't surprise me that the previous 16 star TAS was rejected with a slight majority of No votes, because TASvideos was never going to accept it in the first place. Our rules did not account for it back then, those rules reflected on the community, and the community turned against the run as a result. ...Nach was gaslighting the staff into thinking that his views were the site's views, and that the site needed to stay that way or else it would die, that bounced around within the staff and only furthered a highly negative culture within itself, which once again reflected on the community.
when there are mechanisms for feedback, those still don’t count because, for some reason, they must be a simple reflection of the rules at the time and have little to no value? If those aren’t meaningful in showing consensus, then what is?
The main questions are:
1) Has anything changed since then?
2) Should it?
3) Why?
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1236)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11269
Location: RU
Radiant wrote:
Now about 16 stars, though. I doubt most people find it entertaining to have 121 separate movies, one for each quantity of stars.
Now I fully admit I may be missing something about SMB64, but "that's how we used to do it when we knew less about this game" doesn't strike me as a compelling reason for a separate branch.
I'm all for expanding the site goal, but I still don't feel the site would be improved by allowing e.g. no-glitch, or one-glitch, or low-score, or low-key-press, or no-left-plus-right as distinct runs for e.g. Super Mario Bros. It's just too easy to make up goals like that that end up looking pretty similar to already-established goals, and having two or more runs that look indistinguishable to layman doesn't strike me as entertaining. $.02
Look at this from a different angle. How many different+entertaining branches would TASers want to make for a given game? At what point will they say "Okay there are a few more wild goals we could do but they are entirely esoteric even from our POV"? At which point will new branches stop entertaining even the target audience of that game?
For almost 2 decades we used to answer that it doesn't matter. All we cared about was general audience. Now obviously I'm not advocating throwing general audience out of the window. But can't we finally start meeting somewhere in-between? It's the only way to embrace the hobby as a whole, which will make the community more stable and vivid.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1236)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11269
Location: RU
ikuyo wrote:
Let's say, just as a theoretical example, that a movie gets submitted by author X and accepted, but during publication process we find out that the movie was plagiarized and belongs to someone else. This is a clear violation of our movie rules that require proper crediting. From what I've gathered, what would happen here if the movie was already published is that it would be modified to credit its proper author. However, that implicitly assumes that said author consents to their movie, which they did not submit, to be in this website. And said author could have completely legitimate reasons to not want their movie published. Do we just go against the author's wishes, probably guaranteeing that they won't even want to submit to the site again? This would certainly be a problem, because we clearly like what they do (we accepted a movie made by them, after all). The proper solution, if the author does not want the movie to be published, is to delist it. Maybe the author themself will end up submitting something else, or an improvement to this one, but if we fail to have a solution for this case, we might push away an author that under other circumstances would be featured in the site.
This is worth brainstorming when it happens. I can't guarantee that we will have resources on figuring out potential problems in advance (we might). We used to invent rules in advance, for years. It's very exhausting and hard, results in bloated Movie Rules, and then we may still throw that rule away because reality changes or something obsoletes our prior knowledge.
ikuyo wrote:
For another, completely random case, let's assume that a published movie contains a racial slur as part of its gameplay input. Note that I here say gameplay input and not dialogue or cutscenes, so let's assume this was a deliberate part of input in a movie that otherwise would not have such words. Obviously, such a movie would probably not get accepted, but if for some reason it does, a way to remove it should exist. And even if another submission existed for the same game that removes that word from the input, it doesn't solve the problem: the problem is not that the movie is not entertaining or suboptimal, the problem is that it contains language that should not exist in our site and that actively pushes people away. It is an ethical problem, and cannot be solved by technical solutions such as obsoleting the movie.
I didn't know it was pushing people away.
There are examples of disclaimers that try to preserve the artistic part. We don't have a Movie Rule for this, but we have a Site Rule saying:
Additionally, this site is frequented by people of various races, nationalities, and sexualities. Hate speech will not be tolerated.
In Family Feud's case, I don't think we can conclude from the context of that movie that the slur was used as an instance of hate speech. But I don't have exhausting knowledge about this subject.
Overall, I feel like every situation when we could want to unpublish something is unique enough, involves different issues, and there can not be a generic solution. But if there is a consensus that we need to hide some publications, we'll probably implement hiding them.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1236)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11269
Location: RU
Fortranm wrote:
Sorry if this has been discussed before, but does the credit warp really count as beating the game in this case?
Apparently, there is no save file generated from this run because the credit sequence itself does not change game progression. The memory address 0x7917 (and 0x793D) seems to be the progression counter that gets incremented by 1 every time a level is complete or a big button is pressed. The counter progression for the final stage happens around the time the full moon gets turned into a crescent after the final boss fight with the save file being updated at the same time. The player can reset at this point without losing progress, and if all big buttons have been pressed by then, the Extra Game mode would be unlocked as well.
So... yeah. This movie basically ends with triggering a sequence that doesn't change the game progression whatsoever. Given the precedents of movies triggering the credits in a similar fashion not being accepted as beating the game (#3903: Masterjun & FractalFusion's GBC Pokémon: Red/Green/Blue/Yellow Version "glitched" in 01:10.47 and probably more), should this movie (and the other ones in this obsoletion chain so far) really be considered to have achieved game completion?
We've had this discussion with MM1 GEG. The main idea is that those are 2 separate things, and the sequence you're describing is a part of another level's gameplay. We can't jump to that level, so we can't do the things it does. To check more precisely, somebody needs to see game code probably. Checks didn't happen in due time because reasons. One of the submissions was accepted by me, but I was busy dealing with other aspects of this branch (framewars, encodes).
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1236)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11269
Location: RU
I couldn't find images of Manual's internals where the game name is spelled out, but on the Manual cover it has the "2" so I changed game name to that. So encode is good too.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1236)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11269
Location: RU
I did this to preview correctly
bighaloCutoff = 100
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
And I can't open it in Opera or Chrome at all.