they have some kind of eye issue? don't we give awards to run that are supposed to make you vomit anyway? I remember one of this game that won Speedy TAS I think which had aerial parts where the author moved as much in circles as possible or something, that was truly nauseating, but it won an award
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
I don't know what it is. But I for one for example am unable to play or watch nearly all 3D games.
If several otherwise normal people feel physically sick from watching a run, it's cause for concern. Out TASs are supposed to make you enjoy watching them, not send you running for a vomit bag.
If the amount of people that felt that way were just 1%, perhaps even 5%, I'd say publish this. But more than one person here mentioned feeling sick.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
I liked the record but did not like the camera, you can withdraw it at the end of matches using the tool | TAS Movie Editor |. Searching the frame and delete the button on that part.
I believe we'll have a better acceptance.
I picked out just a few spots where I didn't like the camera choices.
1:26 - During an especially confusing BLJ, the camera flips almost 180 degrees, complete disorienting what is going on. (Most people probably have no clue what is going on here either way.)
2:35-2:44 - I somewhat disagree with the choice of camera angle here.
4:26 - I think this one is the worst offender. Seeing Mario clear the huge gap would be far more entertaining.
I was pretty neutral about the choices during the bowser fights; they chose to synchronize with the sound effects which I thought was an alright choice.
The camera is a bit hyperactive at times throughout the run, and there are a couple camera angles that stuck out as worse choices to me.
After contemplating this at various times throughout the week, I concluded that I personally don't find that entertainment choices to be detrimental enough to merit rejection. I decided to consider the three frame improvement and entertainment choices separately. I think this run is optimal enough that a 3 frame improvement is worth accepting, so I did not put any weight on that in considering the entertainment choices. The camera angles in the run are not easily modifiable, so requesting small changes is out of the question.
As they claim in the submission text, the authors put forth clear effort into doing what they perceived as entertaining. I think this case is worth considering separately from completely neglecting obvious entertainment opportunities. I do think it is important to consider entertainment as compared to the previous submission, but I find this submission to be reasonable enough to be accepted.
If we consider "three frames of improvement" and "entertainment" together or separately we might reach different conclusions. One may argue that some level of entertainment loss may not be worth trading for such small gain. I see it as a gain that should be accepted unless there is a significant (whatever that means) flaw in entertainment.
I ultimately decided to vote yes, though I do recognize the validity of some of the other arguments in this thread. I'd encourage the authors to try to sort through the garbage pile that is this thread and try to understand the viewers' underlying constructive criticisms for their next project.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Experienced player
That was Inzult's response to others' comparing judging and expectations between TASing and real world sports.
By the way, Personman and Kirkq both had some really well written arguments, and I think they should be recognized.
Link to video
2235 views care enough to like/dislike. That's about 1%.
2149 views like.
Of the views who rated, 3.85% dislike. That's good enough to get published here! !!!
Of the views who watch the video, .04% views care enough to dislike.
.04% of 1900 (number of views on sm64) is .76 views.
So far, the approximate percentage of views who dislike this movie on youtube is comparable to the percentace who dislike hearing Nyeh! ~750 times.
More likely, the people who dislike (which on this forum would probably encompass both no and meh votes) the video, simply close the tab and move on to the next.
Clearly though I have confirmation bias and just want to show that youtube is useless. Also I don't know what confirmation bias is, so there!
I haven't watched the whole run, and I'm a pretty stupid guy so my arguments are invalid. Youtube is pretty useless for determining anything about what should or should not be published on tasvideos. However, a main argument from the "camera angles are bad" type people seems to be that it will discourage new viewers. So we've got some new viewers. There is the HOLY SHIT THEY BEAT SM64 IN 5 MINUTES Z0MGZOR WOWFACE!?! kind. They can either watch this video with "bad" camera angles, and their response will probably be HOLY SHIT THEY BEAT SM64 IN 5 MINUTES Z0MGZOR WOWFACE!?!, or they can watch the 3 frame slower video and their response will probably be HOLY SHIT THEY BEAT SM64 IN 5 MINUTES Z0MGZOR WOWFACE!?! Those are the guys who have never seen sm64 beat in 5 minutes before. Then we have the new viewers who have seen some superfast (0 star, 1 star, whatever) sm64 runs. They will either like the run, or they won't. Chances are, they've already seen one or more that they liked. If they liked this one, great! If they didn't OH NOES TAS SPOILED FOREVER THESE THINGS SUCK I'LL NEVER WATCH ONE AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! isn't terribly likely. They'll still probably watch the next iteration. And then there is the guys that are super into sm64. They'll like it or they won't. Either way they're very likely to watch the next iteration. So overall, I don't see publishing this as being something that will drive viewers away. Having a new sm64 publication on the front page? Attractive. Popular game, might draw a few more people.
If we're in the business of attracting people to our site so adelikat can use google ad money to buy more beer, then publishing this movie is a good thing. If we're in the business of having up the fast video that the most tasvideos members think is the most entertaining, then I think not publishing this video is the way to go. I'm not a fan of sm64 movies either way, and couldn't really care less. This isn't a game I played as a child, so I don't care about it.
I've never asked why new submissions have a waiting period before they can be judged, but I'm guessing this is a textbook example: so that there is time for emotions to die down before factoring into the decision.
In either case, I think someone will get to work soon on a "new" version that ties this but with the more popular camera angles. That one will be accepted.
Wow, I really don't see what people are getting so worked up about. I didn't find the new camera angles to be offensive, nauseating, confusing, or whatever - if anything, it was refreshing to see a game that's been run so many times from a different perspective. This run gets a firm "yes" from me. Now, if only someone can figure out how to get in the moat door and break the 5-minute mark...
I find the camera angle to be poor in this run.
For all mario games, I think the best view is where you can see Mario all the time and preferably at an angle from behind or from the side. (definitely not front)
I vote yes for the improvement.
I think camera angles should definitely be a consideration for publication.
Imagine if someone make a run where you don't see Mario at all, I don't see the point to publish that even if it's the fastest run on Earth.
The camera angle chosen in this run is poor but it's not to the point where I would deny publication.
This video now has only 24% No votes, well within reason for publication under Nach's 30% rule.
I am very tempted to do a more detailed analysis of the comments left in this thread, as I believe that positive ones now significantly outnumber negative ones, but it would be kind of a lot of work.
Adelikat, would you find a numerical breakdown of how many people have expressed positive, negative, and neutral opinions in this thread helpful in judging the movie? If so, I'll do it. I fear that sometimes the vehemence of some comments ends up skewing our perceptions of the actual counts. Of course, the numbers aren't everything, but they're kind of the best metric we have, and it seems good to make sure we actually know what they are.
One thing I did go ahead and do was search for posts containing the words 'nauseous', 'nausea', 'vomit', 'sick', and 'ill', as Nach had expressed concern that this run might cause such problems for some viewers. Exactly one post, by Pointless Boy, expressed such a concern. I don't mean to trivialize Pointless Boy's experience; that really sucks and it sucks that he can't enjoy this run. But as he said, he experienced similar nausea watching the film Cloverfield -- some people are, unfortunately, sensitive to fast, swingy 3D motion. I don't think the problem is widespread, and I don't think we can reject a run because such people exist, just as the producers of Cloverfield went ahead and released their movie, and theaters played it.
A warb degombs the brangy. Your gitch zanks and leils the warb.
Nach and I expressed similar complaints. But that's still just three out of I-dunno-but-quite-a-lot. As far as judging this movie is concerned, the positive comments are indeed starting to greatly outnumber the negative ones. I'm guessing that in the beginning only people who were annoyed with the camera angles found it necessary to voice their opinion, with the people who really enjoyed to movie voicing theirs in response. I'm pretty sure this will be accepted.
It got to me a little, but not as bad as any of the fps N64 games. The worst part was actually hexable, i.e. the zooming at the end of the bowser fight.
Sage advice from a friend of Jim: So put your tinfoil hat back in the closet, open your eyes to the truth, and realize that the government is in fact causing austismal cancer with it's 9/11 fluoride vaccinations of your water supply.
Location: Welgaea, the divine city
I certainly don't post often, but this run actually holds some importance to me.
I'm not a hardcore TASer or anything, but I do very much enjoy watching them. I've spent afternoons watching videos on this site and reading about the process, details, methods, and drive to save that one frame, and lightly dabbled in it some, myself (my own TAS has been on hold for a very long time, now...)
That said, if a choice few frames can be saved, I would be all for publishing a new movie, be it one or three frames. Based on that alone, I would love to approve publishing this, especially if it helps draw in a different community.
However, I also note that to a casual observer, such as myself, three frames are really meaningless when watching the video. The only real visible difference are the camera changes. Which brings us to the debate at hand. I certainly didn't find the camera as horrible as others here have, but I'm also not fond of it. Based on this alone I would prefer the old video stay simple because I find it much more enjoyable to watch. It felt more like a progression as the video went on. The new camera makes it harder to tell what's going on, and though I do certainly know what's going on, the video instead simply feels like five minutes of chaos instead of a smooth adventure.
Something else of importance to me, and I believe this was mentioned somewhere earlier in this thread as well, is that the 0-star team put a great deal of effort into producing their video, the end result being drastically different from the previous (not to say the authors of this run did not). This video, on the other hand, is for all practical purposes identical to the previous, merely finding three frames of optimization, such as starting acceleration a frame sooner. Though the run has a brand new set of names on it, it still feels like the 0-star run, only with someone else's additions. Now, I certainly know it's more complicated than this, but this is what I see as a viewer. As such, it feels almost disrespectful to the efforts of the previous team to replace it as such. This isn't a problem here alone, I'll add. In any similar case I think some tribute should be given to the previous team.
In short, were I able to vote I would vote no. Not because it is only a three-frame improvement, nay, I would be more than happy to approve that. Were the camera more enjoyable to watch, and the efforts of the previous team given a tip of the hat, I would vote yes in a heart beat.
I can certainly understand the potential feelings of disappointment an author (or authors) could get if their very hard work is obsoleted by somebody else's, especially if the improvement is very minor. However, that's just the harsh reality that TASers have to live with.
(Although, thinking about it, perhaps the movie listing mechanism could be changed so that the entire history of a TAS is preserved with equal importance given to every publication, listing the publications in cronological order from the oldest to the newest and fastest/best. This way TAS authors wouldn't feel so much that their hard work has gone to waste.)
Since the 'meh' votes don't care either way, we could split them equally among the yes and no votes for fairness, in which case we would get a clean 30-70% split.