I am just curious as to why there are two categories when voting, but only one when displaying them...
As far as I can tell, the end rating is ~66% based on the entertainment factor and ~33% on technical factor. That way movie which are perfectly executed (9—10 on perfection) but not very interesting to watch don't get too high rating, which is good.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
This one. Don't know how exactly (can't really help with the exact wording); but as Warp suggests it, this is a speedrunning community, so I guess it should say something about aiming for fastest completion time as a primary objective and everything else as a secondary (despite the fact that in many cases, the appeal of a run is nothing more than a consequence of its speed, let alone a separate objective).
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
They're fast and extremely brutal demonstrations of luck manipulation.
I don't have to like anything else, but I fail to see how Monopoly run is connected to the art and stuff, either. Surely, what are you saying about it is true, but mere 30 seconds without any discernable action?… To me, the fact that the game could be beaten in such a ridiculous amount of time is much more impressive than the run itself.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
even though the primary objective around here is speed
This is the primary objective in the real world, but the goals say… You know the drill. Apart from the guidelines, the goal section mentiones speed only in "the run must be entertaining, but fast as well; not sloppy" kind of context.
Nobody says speed and entertainment are mutually exclusive, but there are too many controversive situations around this that must be dealt with somehow. That's all.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Oh, sure, giving *one* example (on a fixed-speed scroller game) surely is enough to prove me wrong, yeah. It doesn't matter that several hundreds of movies have been obsoleted by faster entries and many submissions have even been rejected because of not being fast enough. "Hey, there's this *one* entry which was not obsoleted by a faster entry, thus we don't aim for speed." Sure.
Oh, come on. Somewhat later he submitted another movie, to obsolete Genisto's princess-only SMB2 run. "Albeit being faster, this run is not up to our current standards of quality, moreover we don't need it at all — but the older one will stay here."
And I'm dead sure it's not the only example. In the meantime, we say we are tool-assisted speedrunning community, but when it comes to obsoleting old movies with faster ones, it may become a matter of entertainment and art and whatever, but not speedrunning.
Warp wrote:
There's nothing contradictory in having different types of runs: A run of the type "as fast as possible, whatever it takes to do it" and runs which have some constraints or additional goals to them for entertainment value (but still are as fast as possible to achieve those goals).
Either you're consistently trying to miss my point, or you don't get it at all. For a recent example, check m2k2 forum for a 0% TAS of Metroid Fusion. The guy who made it, Dragonfangs, had two objectives: 1) going through each room the coolest looking way possible, 2) try to make that at maximum speed. In other words, he perfectly fulfilled our goals written on the WhyAndHow page. However, his run would never obsolete Megafrost's, cause we're not an entertainment community, we're speedrunning community. That's what I'm talking about. And the WhyAndHow page must be rewritten to reflect that.
Warp wrote:
Can you give some examples where speed greatly reduces the entertainment factor?
Basically, most (if not all) of the 1-vs-1 fighting games.
Then, puzzle games like Monopoly. They are a challenge to TAS but completely uninteresting to watch. "Wait, did he… oh, wait… and that's all? Oh…"
Then, games like Alien Soldier: "start-wheep-wheep-wheep-wheep-wheep-boss!-whoosh-bzzt-bang-start…" and so on. There are lots of games that totally lose their appeal when being TASed if their greatest timesaver is a move (or a glitch) that allows you to travel through the levels with so much speed that it strips the game from any action at all.
I'm sure I can come up with more examples, but it's enough for now to show what I mean.
Warp wrote:
And what is it that you want? Supermario fooling around, the objective being... what? Who dances the funniest?
You're starting to sound religious here, honestly.
No, that's not what I want. I want (*sigh*) the goals to be rewritten to reflect the true purposes of this site. If that's still not clear, then I give up.
Warp wrote:
Superhuman speed is exactly what makes these movies awesome, and achieving extreme tool-assisted speed requires in most games a huge amount of work and dedication. Anyone can easily make a movie where the character fools around and does "funny" things, but not everyone can beat the best (tool-assisted) completion time for the game.
Did you ever think that to get the tool-assisted movie to be interesting and generally entertaining (this means not only entertaining for the hardcore fans, but for the average player, either) requires about the same, if not even more, amount of work? If you browse up the movies rated 9+ for the technical perfection, you'll soon find up that not all of them scored the same in the entertainment domain. Donkey Kong FTW.
Warp wrote:
Ah, please don't tell me you are jealous. You would want to make videos yourself but you aren't able to beat people's times?
Wut? o_0
Attacking someone with offensive but a totally irrelevant point isn't the right strategy to win the argument, is it? It only proves that you don't have much constructive things to say.
As for the question, no, I'm not jealous. I have neither enough will nor dedication to start a TAS myself, and it's perfectly ok with me. But of course, if I decide to make a TAS to be published here, I would make sure it will be of high standard. Most probably, I will start with improving one of the older runs.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
One guess is to show which movies you have voted on. The other is to determine the difference between your votes and the average rating.
Not essential, but still handy.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Great! By the way, now we have a really democratic and reliable mechanism to determine star-worthiness. Very clever idea indeed, thanks!
Edit: Sorting the movies by their rating would be very useful.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
What is true is that we do not aim *only* to speed but *also* to entertainment. However, the latter is just a *secondary* objective. There haven't been many videos which have obsoleted another video by being more entertaining but slower (there might have been one or two cases that I faintly recall of, but that's all).
WhyAndHow // Goals section wrote:
Although most of our movies intend to play games as fast as possible (tool assisted speedruns, if you will), with respect to art, our main goal is to create movies that are beautiful to watch.
Not long ago, Diman submitted a Gradius movie that was faster than Morimoto's. "No, it's boring to watch, it's not entertainment!" Ok, whatever… We have numerous examples when faster but less entertaining movie obsoleted another well-executed, but more funny one. Do we have any slower, but more "beautiful to watch" movies that obsoleted their faster counterparts? At most, they are put in a separate category (doesn't use warps, doesn't aim for the fastest time, etc).
Now how contradictory is that? The fact that sometimes speed can greatly reduce the entertainment factor makes me think these goals should be reformed and rewrote significantly, if not completely, to denote the fact that we judge movies mainly by the factor of speed, because in their (goals') current state, they spawn numerous controversies pointed out by Dan_.
Bullshit? Maybe. The question is not whether it is bullshit, but where is it located, and what are the consequences.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
There are two ways to do it, but the method you described on the m2k2 forum uses two bombs at a time to propel yourself, although it covers more distance with each jump. Which of them is faster, though?
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
A name does not have to be descriptive in order to be known.
But it doesn't make it more known than, say, NESVideos. Although NESVideos in not generally descriptive concerning the site's content, but at least you know what to expect there: the NES videos. Most people know what "NES" is (or at least they can google for it), and the "videos" part is really self-descriptive. Now try to google "TAS" for example.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
I usually listen to music when doing the IBJ. I just press the key on every beat and it works. So house music fans, get a song between 125-130 bpms (I don't remember the exact bpm), and bomb away!
LOL, that's a great idea! Not really "unassisted", but sure it is an acceptable assistance. :)
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
