But tell me, if you have a backup plan of sorts, in whatever area of life, does having that plan actually mean that you're considering actualizing the plan? No, it just means that you're _prepared_ for it, _if_ it ever becomes necessary to actualize it.
Bringing it up another notch I see. I think it is nice that you are still able to actually surprise me with your behavior, I honestly didn't think that it could be done anymore.
Oh, how could you. Saturn is trying his best to open your eyes, but unfortunately, you still aren't able to see the full extent of his arrogance.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Huh? You just point the installation CD to the same drive your system is on. It will ask: "There is a Windows installation on this drive, blah blah, continue anyway?" Do so. That's it.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
I thought obvious recommendations are also to be included. When I first came, I wouldn't have looked for Mario 64 had it not been starred. And then I saw the 1-star run which astounded me - I'd never thought such things were possible, let alone the more recent efforts!
Though game X may be a popular game and you think people will look for it, I think it should still be starred, depending on run quality. Seems better to include an absolute gem that most will have already seen than to have a minority miss out on a highlight.
And from what Bisqwit says, these are meant to both be recommendations for newcomers and also a checklist of 'have you seen this?' for older folk.
That makes sense, but only for games where tool-assistance is prominent. If we take games like SMB or SMB 3, where most tricks are the same as in the up-to-date unassisted runs of the same games, the factor of tool-assistance is considerably less prominent. If you take an uninitiated person and show them the current SDA efforts, they'll be surprised just the same, because they likely wouldn't immediately see the difference anyway. SMW, on the other hand, is different at least because the preferred methods of traveling there are visually different (hopping, 1/1 swimming, and so on), and spotting this aspect with a naked eye takes little to no effort. SM64 takes it so much further that the runs are not even close to each other. It's, as you said, surprising because the TAS does things not thought to be possible in this case.
Thus, I generally think it's a good idea to give the most prominent examples of TASing priority over the most prominent games that have been TASed. All while adhering to the guidelines mentioned by Bisqwit, obviously.
But of all things, the recommendation should not work as a double for the top entries of this list, or the whole idea won't make sense at all.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Btw, do we all agree that the stars should signify not-completely-obvious movie recommendations aimed at newcomers, and not anything different? Just to be sure we are all on the same page.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
I highly doubt that the fragmentation introduced is anything significantly worse than standard fragmentation.
Well, let's put it like that. Fragmentation occurs becase the data is written in separate chunks to efficiently fill the available space. Every time you or some external process delete or resize a file, a gap occurs. The drive performance decreases almost exponentially when the free space diminishes because every file is cut into hundreds and thousands of small chunks that fill the gaps in every remote part of the platter, increasing the amount of physical operations with each read or write operation (and thus, wearing out the drive's mechanics). With partitioning you artificially cut the space in half, making the drive suffer twice as much if both partitions are low on remaining space. It is, of course, not a problem if each of your partitions has 15-20% of free space, and you defragment them regularly, but that might be hard to maintain, especially in case with a laptop. It's harder to maintain and defragment multiple partitions like that, for sure.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Partitioning helps mainly against file system faults, and also when you need to format the OS partition without having to touch the rest of the files.
On the other hand, more partitions = more fragmentation. And fragmentation usually shortens the life span of a drive dramatically, which is something to consider.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
I actually like your idea a lot, because it will make those who care participate without knowing for sure whether their choices will affect anything, making the whole process more honest. But knowing Bisqwit as much as I do at this point, I expect him either to consider/cater to every opinion presented (casting it into the abyss of statistics), or allowing his own opinions to interfere with choices. :P
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Derakon:
Obviously, there's no need to involve starring in the publication process. Moreover, I am of the opinion that it's best if the stars are assigned after the general public excitement has toned down.
Actually, I portray it as making a star nominees thread only visible to the committee members; the rest would be pretty similar to what we've had in the previous star nominees thread (sans most of the off-topic). For instance, someone proposes a movie to be starred, explains the reasons, the others provide feedback to the best of their ability. If there are no strong counterarguments, the change is made. This topic can be used for announcing changes and discussing them between the general audience.
Obviously, it can be done differently just as well (for instance, via private messages between Bisq and committee members).
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
My point is, more movies should be published, perhaps with encodes being an optional step. If people want a giant load of SM movies, great. Make a page devoted to them. Have the any and 100% in the SNES section. Publish movies that 2/3 of people like. If no one wants to encode, fine. If enough people want an encode, someone will take pity on them, or perhaps someone new will try to take it upon themselves.
That pretty much echoes mine and several others' sentiments from, like, 2006. ;(
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
On topic of star selection method, I have discussed it with Baxter recently, and we came to a following conclusion. Basically, there are three options in regards to selecting what's worth being starred.
1. Only Bisqwit can select movies.
Pros:
• a personal opinion presented as a personal opinion is fine;
• Bisqwit has enough TASing and TAS watching experience to tell what's what, even if he isn't always correct in his judgements.
Cons:
• single opinion = many missed and/or misjudged aspects in process of selection;
• personal bias will be most prominent (forget about opinion diversity).
2. A small (ideally 7-10) group of people.
Pros:
• perhaps the best choice in terms of diversity (several people with strong opinions will counterweigh each others' biases, and there won't be enough people for game popularity factor to kick in);
• the choices will be argumented in order to count, which will make the whole process a lot more reasonable;
• it will be easy to keep the list up to date.
Cons:
• people will whine a lot if they don't make the "star committee" members;
• some opinions may become unrepresented even if as much as 10 people will direct the selection.
3. All users can vote upon star selection.
Pros:
• everyone who cares will be able to vote;
• all opinions have a chance to be represented.
Cons:
• diversity will fall a victim to popularity (any unpopular opinion will be trumped by statistics);
• with a large number of votes, it will be hard to give significance to every single one of them, and it's likely they won't even be argumented;
• gauging opinions might become a technical problem (or, it will complicate the regular site activities even further).
In my opinion, the only option that makes sense if it is the result (and not the process) we are after, is #2. If it is the process, then it is #3. If no-one gives a shit, it should remain #1.
Clarification on option #2, since it is the most controversial one (and also the one I personally vote for).
As you can see, its strongest aspect is having many (but not too many for it to become inconvenient to gauge) opinions that are all argumented and potentially diverse. Unpopular opinions will count. Personal bias will be counterweighed thanks to the amount of members in the committee. The only real problem is getting into this committee.
As I see it, a committee volunteer must, to a certain degree:
1) give a shit about stars and their discussion, otherwise there's no point to it in the first place;
2) be intelligent, able to communicate their thoughts very clearly and without resorting to stupid and/or irrelevant arguments;
3) have watched at least half the site's publications, including most critically acclaimed ones;
4) have a keen eye on entertainment and technical qualities of a movie;
5) be able to discern "good game" from "good movie of a game", "good movie for a first-time watcher" from "good movie for an expert", "highly entertaining movie" from "technically well-done movie", and other such things;
6) be free of strong biases and other attachments (perhaps not having many personally made movies published is a good thing here).
Opinions?
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
It was me. I pissed on his soup, and layed my old socks on his sandwiches, and then pooped into his coffee.
Oh, yes. Mmmm.
Edit: Added bold for emphasis.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
It's not as much "debatable" per se, as it is simply relative. If there are 10-20 well-known and outspoken users who support a certain game's runs, it may as well be counted as popular. It won't matter if these 10-20 people will be the sole populace on the site who actually loves the game (I think games like Rygar and Aria of Sorrow somewhat fit the description here).
Besides, popularity in this case translates to amount of people being fond of the game, but it still doesn't mean anything for the movies themselves (I know for sure I don't like watching long Chrono Trigger or Final Fantasy VI runs despite being fond of the games). Using that to discuss runs might be a little misleading.
Also, if you notice, you took four of the few extreme examples of popular games. What if I ask you about NES Metroid, Tetris, Sonic 1, Super Castlevania IV, Castlevania: Bloodlines, Excitebike, Ninja Gaiden, Contra 3, and perhaps a couple dozen more games?
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
May I as well list things that are debatable? As follows: significancy, popularity, legitimacy, common sense, entertainment value, similarity, being proper, being suited.
It would be really interesting if people participating in such debates would use none of those to defend their arguments.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Last time I had a problem like this it was due to some hardware conflict initiated by my sound card. Although with some luck, I expect the same problem to be solved by installing proper drivers after uninstalling the not-so-proper.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Ey, Moozooh, Coil! I love that band so much. I actually just recommended that to Shinryuu, I think I convinced him by telling him that they've actually made soundtrack to the documentry "Gay men's guide to safe sex" and that the singer is homosexual.
Peter Chrisopherson (and some of the non-core band members, too) is also homosexual. Actually, haven't I recommended it to you back in the day, as well?
On a slightly related note, if you find this DVD achievable in some not-very-haemorrhoids-inducing way, be sure to inform me. I've been to two TTHBC's live performances (one of thm being the inaugural), and they didn't even sell it, ffs. :\
Warp: http://moozooh.diinoweb.com/files/music/Shinryuu%20-%20%5B2008%5D%20Lolicon.zip
(But seriously, you can do it yourself.)
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Don't take the technical vote wrong, I think it looks great. However, considering this is the first possibly published TAS of this game, I feel there is more to improve (such as a glitch or something)
"I will rate lowly this movie because maybe, who knows, there is a glitch to be found..."
While I won't discuss stickyman's reasoning for the vote, technically, he is correct. First generation TASes of even remotely complex games have always, always been improvable because it's quite practically impossible to find everything that will be useful the first time around. Whether that should be taken into account when voting, I'll leave that on his own conscience.
mz wrote:
mmbossman wrote:
I'll give it a 4 (tech) /7 (entertainment), but because I only have theories about improvements
The full quote was as such (emphasis mine):
mmbossman wrote:
I'll give it a 4 (tech) /7 (entertainment), but because I only have theories about improvements, I don't see any reason to not accept this for publication.
I should also point out that mmbossman's qualms were quite valid. Don't forget that judges are judges because they are supposed to be able to appraise the quality of optimization without having to check everything for themselves (although that's always welcome).
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
