Well, this shouldn't really happen unless your HDD was accessed for read+write cycles all the time, since usual CD reading speed is about 15-20 times slower than usual HDD reading speed.
Hi, would you please explain what is interesting about doing a "speedrun" without, um, speed?
For me, that was the essence of boredom. Also, 45 second "intro" to the actual movie can be shortened to about 5, to everyone's benefit.
To answer the question, here's the excerpt from #nesvideos:
<moozooh> compared to how much time it took FODA to make his run, this is insane.
<rikku> yes but foda have do it first and this is harder
<moozooh> well that's right.
<rikku> and he have a real life
<moozooh> haha
<moozooh> and you don't? :D
<rikku> no
What I didn't like:
- camera work on "Li'l penguin lost" course and sideview cameras on Bowser stages (esp. Dark World and Fire Sea, but not the fights themselves).
What I did like:
- inclusion of double lavafall jump;
- everything else.
Waiting for a sub-15 run now.
Oh, almost forgot:
Won't really work because of near 1:2 run length ratio, not to mention the absense of dominant movement direction (which is right for most sidescrolling games). :\
Hmm, for the record, sound effects didn't bother me. Having the stages go by too quickly so that I could watch the transitions did. Hence, the meh.
Maybe you should play around a bit more, like drawing pictures or silhouettes or something like that, while dodging the enemies? A rough time estimate shows that your in-level time would be multi[lied by about three, making a total time of the movie… about 7 minutes. Big deal. I think I'd enjoy such a movie more.
There are less enemies in MII, especially near reappearing blocks… Two freezable enemies that would chase you to a wall I don't remember seeing, either. I'm not sure there is such a place anywhere in the game, but if there is, it might be worth a shot.
Ok, let me present it to you in a more elaborate fashion.
You've confused the cause and the effect. Listing the lowest results isn't made to construct a wall of shame, while a wall of shame always lists the lowest result. It's a logical fallacy to think that listing should lead to or is made for constructing a wall of shame.
In continuation of your fallacy, you give the statistics page a certain negative connotation and immediately attack it, therefore implying a certain "normal" (=expected) way of behavior that would occur, while it most likely wouldn't if you didn't bring it up.
Again, bringing up your own connotations, thereby doing the opposite of what you've wanted — you're insulting the runs and covering it with public.
Another implied pattern of behavior. While no-one did what you described, you were the one to bring it up as if it's a phenomenon observable here. While analyzing the mistakes and trying to improve the content would be mature, what you just did was an example of what was childish.
On a bit unrelated note, but let's debunk this as well. I'm not sure how bringing up the fact that you have a rejected submission helps proving you're not against rejecting. Or did you want to say you were agreed with rejecting it? I don't remember it to be so.
Man, you can't be serious. Your argument goes like this: "you are selling knives — knives are used to kill people — you're selling means to kill people; I thought you weren't supposed to".
You wouldn't perceive it as offending if the authorship didn't concern you that much. It's not the author who is rated, it's the run. If its author can't accept the rating, then it's his fault. People rate the runs, anyway, statistics are here to gather and arrange the results.
I fail to see how statistics can downplay anything.
No-one promised to like anything, I thought Guidelines had it covered pretty well. I like how Tub has put it above.
This attitude is destructive. The statistics are there to build a better site, to fill it with better content, and what are you doing, calling it a wall of shame? Awesome.