Wow, this game must be really a pain to TAS with so much luck (and lag) involved. The programmers were clearly underfed, with so much lag present in a game whose graphics are even more simplistic than SMB's. I guess most of the CPU time got wasted on processing Minnie's AI.
It was short and nice enough to warrant a yes vote, though I can't say I was really entertained.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
I disagree that this is "impossible" or even that difficult.
The thing is, there is no tool to forcedly "depressurize" people, or even diagnose the presence of peer pressure, since it's up to each individual person and their social position and skills.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
I don't have anything against owning a series as long as quality is maintained. Because, you know, if someone obsoletes one of your Vectorman runs, you'll have to reclaim it by doing an even better run. Otherwise such owning is moot. ;)
And it's good there's interest in doing Genesis runs. Some of the existing runs should also be improved (Earthworm Jim, for example).
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
"Cheerful" as in "more substantial". But yeah, many good Genesis titles are easily overshadowed by Sonic when it comes to TASing. Come to think of it, Treasure games were almost untouched until 2007, Contra: Hard Corps also haven't been given the treatment it deserves, it took 2.5 years for Rocket Knight Adventures to start being improved, and it's not even the half of all Genesis games which have considerable entertainment potential.
I'm glad at least Vectorman series is being worked on recently.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Very good, though I expected a bit more cheerful results. :D
However, you should be able to gain more seconds on open levels (sadly, there aren't many of those in VM2).
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Similarly, if I wanted numbers, I'd go watch the Olympic. Because I do know the general difference between lower frame count and faster gameplay. (No, they are not equal, and such thing as different camera angles illustrate that pretty well.)
And it should be noted that I visit this site for entertainment, not for staring at numbers.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
So you would watch Mario's back instead of more interesting action for 1.5 hours? Wow.
Let me express a big meh towards numbers obsession and WR mentality here.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
That would actually be more impressive if anything, since its kind of hard to TAS when you can't see what you're properly doing.
That could've been impressive in an unassisted run, but not in a TAS where angles, positions and timing are somewhat easily [pre-]determined. And I don't care how hard it was for the author to make it: if it looks bad, I can't help but to vote no or turn it down any other way.
AKA wrote:
If the giant zoom lens, got used at the start of a star all the way till Mario collects a star, would you complain if Mario was only a pixel in the distance?
Yes I would, and that would be the most sucking movie since the sucker came to sucktown.
Also, Guidelines wrote:
In games that have user-controllable camera, try to control the camera so that it provides most interesting or beautiful angles at all time instead of going with default settings.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
So, for example, if there was a way to fix the camera so that it won't show almost anything except Mario's back, and the resulting run would be about 10 minutes faster than the published, according to this statement it'd be preferrable?
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Changing your voting pattern because people know what you vote... sounds somehow weird to me.
It's weird, but that's how it is with any purely subjective evaluation. Normally a good intention (making irresponsible or heavily biased people not to vote) might result in a destructive outcome:
1) peer pressure (and as a result, more bias instead of the otherwise);
2) the more sensitive a person is, the more negatively they would probably think about those who rated a certain movie unjust in their opinion.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
They shouldn't. Or, it should be done voluntarily.
Many people might feel uncomfortable about invading their privacy, and won't rate because of it, or fall under peer pressure even more than they probably already have.
EDIT: Since the "voluntary" option was added already after my vote, I asked to undo my vote (previously for undisclosure), and re-voted for that option.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Hmm… I'm pretty sure I remember playing a much more interesting version of this game when I was a kid, most likely it was the Genesis version. Does anyone remember if it's as long as the SNES one?
Because the NES version, albeit short, is very bad. It was played fairly good, but I couldn't help fastforwarding it due to extreme repetitiveness. Voting meh.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
