That's probably because you haven't said a word on how the supposed product is going to look. This particular trait plagues many, if not all, of your topics, btw.
Next time try to list the possible reasons a game you like will make a good TAS ("I played it years ago and had fun" obviously doesn't work), guesstimate the completion time, find some screenshots, link to FAQs and datasheets, make a half-assed playthrough of the first 30 seconds, try to do anything to help, really. Not being useful and wondering what goes wrong with that leaves any potential contributors with no motivation whatsoever.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
I don't really know if you can call it double standards instead of just nasty irony.
You can't, since adelikat has admitted to have not noticed the post about improvement.
Besides, scaring HappyLee away on his 11th submission for SMB? …Right.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
My point is, if someone buys a new computer, they would likely already try to get the best hardware they can afford, and that's not to say that the emulator itself is frequently (as in: at a faster rate than a PC user would upgrade) updated, bringing better speed and compatibility each few months. So far the thread has only answered a question, "whether I can emulate this game at full speed at this point".
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
So… What particular purpose do these measurements and comparisons serve, again? Finding speed regressions in new emulator builds, or proving that good CPUs are better than worse CPUs? :)
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Well, some of them are (former) players, so that wouldn't really help. Besides, the difference in voting power isn't very pronounced, otherwise people would revolt.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Focusing on entertainment has nothing to do with it.
So far no-one seems to have said anything about the find. I can understand HappyLee: he's Chinese, and he doesn't visit the site often, but I don't understand why a question on delaying the publishing hasn't even been considered.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
First of all, I don't understand why has it been accepted without the improvement mentioned here. This is the fifth generation of a sidestroller, it hasn't been a terribly complex run in the first place, so every improvement should matter, right? Has the discussion been read?
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Is it a demand to TAS from ISO or can it be done with a CD-ROM?
ISO with a corresponding md5 might be preferable in case the disc is scratched or otherwise isn't bit-identical. Otherwise it can become hard to understand what's going on if a movie desyncs.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Sometimes, it will ricochet. The other, an enemy you've just killed with it crushes you (a game bug). Also, you can't ignore the good old recoil kicking you onto the spikes.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Shotgun is far from being the best item in the game just because it needs to be held (also because you can get it very easily (also because you can kill yourself with it (third set of parentheses (a shoutout to JXQ)))).
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
The jetpack is easily the best item in the game, since it makes ropes completely obsolete. Finding it in the first few levels basically guarantees a lot of money later on. Closely following are the climbing gloves, and the cape.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
This is part of the reason I choose Torment as the example. It has very little grinding (unless you want to), very little fetchquesting (unless you want to) and in general, very little outside of the main story you're forced to do. It got loads of stuff to do, but very little it actually forces you to do to further the plot.
That aspect of it I indeed liked, as well as the writing (which drags the game out of a huge "shit, we missed the deadline" pit quite magnificently), but pretty much all the rest was either unfinished, unbalanced, or plain bad.
Neophos wrote:
So the arcade as a platform is generally superior to consoles because the games HAVE to be designed with replayability in mind?
Indeed, this is very often the case. But it rather goes the other way around: the problem with consoles is that quality control is way more lenient, and their users are considerably more lazy. It's a topic for a different discussion, but I'll point out that arcade games had to adhere to a lot of rules that would spell their doom lest a single one is ignored:
1) make the game look interesting, or the customer goes away;
2) make the difficulty balanced, or the customer will become too frustrated;
3) make the game play interesting, or the customer will play something else;
4) make the game challenging, or the player will beat it too soon;
5) remove all the padding from a game, or the player will spend more time on each credit.
It's all pretty hard when a game forces you to pay for each playing session, and every session has to be as short as possible for maximum revenue. Suddenly you have to make every minute of the gameplay worth the investment, something that console developers are not forced to do. In this respect the arcades are infinitely superior to every console, ever. And they're basically killed by laziness nowadays, because the current generation of gamers are afraid of games that take 100+ retries before they are beaten (even though most of us grew on such games).
Neophos wrote:
Personally, monetary concerns were also part of the reason. When you couldn't afford more then one game every second month or so, that one game damn better well be played until every single option has been exhausted.
It might have had something to do with lower standards as well, or the love for challenge (I know I was among the few who opted to beat pretty much every game they received, but nearly none of my friends could say the same). Then again, monetary reasons don't stand the test of time: I certainly didn't play the hell out of some of the last decade's games because I couldn't afford more.
Neophos wrote:
So games doesn't get bonus points for novelty? Many games have had interesting gimmicks or features that made it entertaining, but other games afterwards copied, and the gimmick became standard and not something special in subsequent games.
Well, Treasure's Silhouette Mirage (a PS1 game, iirc) had the novelty of changing the player character's "polarity", but it was barely heard of. Ikaruga (where Treasure applied the same mechanic to a shmup), on the other hand, is known by most of the active gamers. Which of them give bonus points to? To the one that plays better, I guess. Poorly implemented novelty isn't worth much.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Planescape: Torment is extremely story- and character-heavy, it's not a game you can replay over and over. You have to let quite some time pass between each playthrough to really enjoy it. Does that make it a bad game?
No, it rather makes it more disposable; a game that you would play through, probably have fun in process, but then inevitably leave and won't touch until you get chewed up by nostalgia or something. (Don't get me started on the particular qualities of Torment, as it's a game I have very mixed feelings about.)
Being or not being RPG has nothing to do with it in general, the fun of the process still is the thing that truly matters. RPGs just dont usually happen to be pick-up-and-play type of games, which basically means you have less fun restarting, less fun having to do repetitive tasks, and so on. I don't give two shits about plot twists if the game forces me to grind or do a zillion of fetch quest to reach them. I don't mind challenge, but I don't particularly like subjecting myself to tedium to experience short moments which may or may not actually be fun. Which is also why I don't play many RPGs. Torment was actually the most recent one that I bothered to finish (in early 2004 or so). For jRPGs it was Last Scenario, and it was actually fun throughout. Between them there were Icewind Dale 2 and Baldur's Gate, and I stopped halfway through in either, because it started to get tedious. They were supposedly good, but I don't think I'll ever get around to finishing them. Too bad.
Neophos wrote:
Fighting games HAVE to be replayed instantly and over and over to get any real satisfaction out of them. Does that mean every fighting game is a top 10 candidate?
Actually, arcade games are very much built around the idea of per-process fun. There are no clear goals announced, there is little to no "extra content" or other such incentives to replay the game. These games that are meant to be replayed, and that's why they are fun in the first place.
I'm pretty sure it also is the real reason behind the longevity of SMB/SMW/SM64 series, Metroid games, Sonic games and so on: they put the focus on the gameplay process. Historical reasons were a far lesser factor of their longevity.
Neophos wrote:
Games like Professor Layton and Phoenix Wright are essentially room-by-room puzzle games, with nearly no satisfaction from the gameplay after the initial playthrough. The only reason to replay any of them would be the humor (Perhaps not Layton so much...). Does that mean that these are terrible games?
In my book, yes. Obviously you can think otherwise, but I wouldn't think of buying a game I could only enjoy once.
Neophos wrote:
To add to the other currently discussed subject: Ocarina of Time ranks quite a bit up on the ladder if we're taking "historical significance" into the equation, but if compared to current-day adventures (even ignoring the graphical aspect), it's not a masterpiece in any area, really. The controls aren't very good (aided by the fact that you play it with the N64 controller), there's a lot of filler and fetch-questing and there's very little challenge. Majora's Mask, on the other hand... Now that's quality.
Basically, that. You can compare any games as soon as you strip them off their technological form (and respective advances/breakthroughs), because content doesn't age. If a game isn't fun to play ten years after release, it means its true value wasn't high in the first place, and no amount of vocal fan support would change that.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Besides, dig out 100 people who never ever played a video game, let them play Tetris, OoT, Resident Evil 4, Super Mario World and Halo and see which game they rank highest.
It's not as much "which game they rank" as it is "let them beat every game once and see which one they play the most after that". Because that basically consustutes the fun factor of any game, ever: as soon as the plot twists, secret endings, and unlockable characters are behind, the only thing left that matters is, that's right, the gameplay process. And it's not as easily influenced as verbal representation of the said rank, because people pathologically like to convince themselves of things that should be, but aren't there.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
I give my vote to Lord Tom. While he did not make as many movies as the other ones on the list his where the ones I enjoyed the most (well, 3 of them at least).
^ A thought stealer.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
