Nothing happened with it because I don't see anything I've said going undefended. It speaks for itself or defends itself.
I can't imagine a world where bullshit defends itself.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Radiant wrote:
or unlicensed games (e.g. Cave Story)
Before the advent of Windows 8 with its store, there was no licensing for Windows. So every game is unlicensed, be it Cave Story or Doom 3.
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.
Here's a suggestion to people like xnamkcor and Dyshonest (the order I named them in is arbitrary, not in order of importance). If you want to have a list of all the TASes for hacks that produce somewhat entertaining runs, and meet a minimal standard of quality, just compile such a list yourself. Then put it somewhere on these forums. And watch what happens.
What you are doing now is arguing that somebody else should do extra work that they think is not necessary. In fact, they even think doing that extra work would make things worse. Are you seriously trying to convince them through your brilliant arguments to do that kind of work anyway? Why not do it yourselves, if you think it'd make the world a better place? Got better things to do? Well, so do the people you are demanding that work from.
[URL=http://tasvideos.org/Movies/GruefoodDelight.html]Gruefood Delight[/URL] started as a list of movies compiled by (mostly) [URL=http://tasvideos.org/forum/profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=2736]alden[/URL]. He wanted there to be a list of notable rejected runs, so he made one. You are free to do the same.
I think this mentality of "if I want something, I need to cry very loudly and shout at people higher up till they do something about it" is a serious problem with our modern society as a whole. If you want things to change, just do it. Offer something instead of demanding something. That's just my advice, you are free to completely disagree and call me an idiot, or ignore me, or whatever. There'll be no hard feeling from my side.
I don't understand what's so hard about this.
(1) TASvideos wants quality runs of quality games.
(2) There are three relevant kinds of games: (a) licensed games, (b) hacks of licensed games, and (c) unlicensed games.
(3) Licensed games are almost always of decent quality; even those games that are commercially panned tend to be of pretty good technical quality. The few that aren't (e.g. ET or Daikatana) tend to fall under "so bad it's good", in that these games are renowned for how bad they are, and viewers are interested in seeing how bad it really is.
(4) The overwhelming majority of hacks and of unlicensed games are total and utter crap. My apologies to any hackers and game designers in the audience, but most of them just are pretty bad; just check any site that lists a couple thousand of them. Now granted, there are numerous hacks (e.g. Super Demo World) or unlicensed games (e.g. Cave Story) that are excellent.
(5) Therefore, we accept runs of all licensed games; and we accept runs of hacks and unlicensed games if we consider them sufficiently well-made and notable. Very simple. "Extra Mario Bros" is well-made and notable, so it goes on the site. "Lololol I replaec mario with a cow and an etxra pipe in L3" is not well-made and not notable, so it does not go on the site. Of course, the run itself needs to be of good quality as well.
But then why do we need to have hacks obsolete different hacks if there is already a system in place which decides which ones get accepted? And even if an older entry eventually gets deems not up to our standards, obsoleting it to make room for a different hack is not the answer. The old hack can keep it's entry, no one ever accepts new submissions for it, and the new hack gets a new entry.
Super Backwards Day Cow Mario(NES) Walkathon: For the Children(Kobe Edition)
Kuwaga wrote:
Here's a suggestion to people like xnamkcor and Dyshonest (the order I named them in is arbitrary, not in order of importance). If you want to have a list of all the TASes for hacks that produce somewhat entertaining runs, and meet a minimal standard of quality, just compile such a list yourself. Then put it somewhere on these forums. And watch what happens.
What you are doing now is arguing that somebody else should do extra work that they think is not necessary. In fact, they even think doing that extra work would make things worse. Are you seriously trying to convince them through your brilliant arguments to do that kind of work anyway? Why not do it yourselves, if you think it'd make the world a better place? Got better things to do? Well, so do the people you are demanding that work from.
[URL=http://tasvideos.org/Movies/GruefoodDelight.html]Gruefood Delight[/URL] started as a list of movies compiled by (mostly) [URL=http://tasvideos.org/forum/profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=2736]alden[/URL]. He wanted there to be a list of noteable rejected runs, so he made one. You are free to do the same.
I think this mentality of "if I want something, I need to cry very loudly and shout at people higher up till they do something about it" is a serious problem with our modern society as a whole. If you want things to change, just do it. Offer something instead of demanding something. That's just my advice, you are free to completely disagree and call me an idiot, or ignore me, or whatever. There'll be no hard feeling from my side.
Are you saying it takes more effort to make a new entry than it does to modify an old one?
"The guy was fatally injured and wants to be covered by God's tears (rain) before he dies. God is too busy to bother because it wastes frames."
Frames 16:26
Your posts supposedly defend themselves, do they not?
So, you fail to prove that, "If hacks are forced to follow such rules, then all games should"? You don't even know the rules and what made them appear in the current form.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
I spent some time writing a post, but since then, 10 more posts have cropped up, and Radiant probably summed it up better than I ever could. Still, here goes:
Let's reiterate.
xnamkcor wrote:
So, because you're afraid of what could happen, you've decided to employ absurd database protocols?
This is done to avoid redundancy. Most hacks of the same game are so similar to the point it is just redundant to keep several runs of them around, so the site goes with the best canidate we have for a niche, even if several movies would be possible canidates for it. This is exactly what happened several times in the past.
Is Hard Relay Mario similar enough to obsolete Air 2?
This seems to have been the original question of this debate, but dozens of posts of frankly ridiculous arguing seem to have steered us in all sorts of wacky directions, to the point this had to be split off in a separate thread.
You can certainly argue for, or against this, but the majority of the audience seems to think it does.
The motivation behind the choice to limit hacks to a "one hack per niche" criterium is the same as the one limiting branches. Instead of trying to account for every possible variation of game X, we want to give the most optimal coverage to game X, showing off as many interesting facets about the game as we can while avoiding redundancy.
The database is not the problem, but for my money, it is a more elegant and opportune solution to obsolete a movie with a movie of a different game instead of outright making a published movie vanish. I should point out this has not only happened for hacks, but instead there have been several cross-game obsoletions as well.
Tasvideos can afford to be inclusionist for official games because the number of officially licensed and published games is most certainly finite. The number of hacks is not. This is part of the quality control argument, as you can make a TAS for any possible hack and claim it's entertaining enough to be published. Once again I should point out, not every officially published game is fair TASing game either.
I do believe there should be a community on the internet keeping track of TASes for hacks of various games which should be as inclusionist as possible. However, the system used at tasvideos is not suited for this purpose.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
scrimpeh wrote:
Tasvideos can afford to be inclusionist for official games because the number of officially licensed and published games is most certainly finite. The number of hacks is not. This is part of the quality control argument, as you can make a TAS for any possible hack and claim it's entertaining enough to be published.
To add to what you're saying. You can make hacks of hacks as well. Or make some small changes to a pre-existing hack and call it a new one, which is precisely what Air 2 is to Air 1.
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.
Tasvideos can afford to be inclusionist for official games because the number of officially licensed and published games is most certainly finite. The number of hacks is not. This is part of the quality control argument, as you can make a TAS for any possible hack and claim it's entertaining enough to be published.
To add to what you're saying. You can make hacks of hacks as well. Or make some small changes to a pre-existing hack and call it a new one, which is precisely what Air 2 is to Air 1.
And Mario 2j was to Mario 1.
scrimpeh wrote:
Is Hard Relay Mario similar enough to obsolete Air 2?
This seems to have been the original question of this debate, but dozens of posts of frankly ridiculous arguing seem to have steered us in all sorts of wacky directions, to the point this had to be split off in a separate thread.
Don't look at me, I was just wondering why one game obsoleted another.
"The guy was fatally injured and wants to be covered by God's tears (rain) before he dies. God is too busy to bother because it wastes frames."
Frames 16:26
Before the advent of Windows 8 with its store, there was no licensing for Windows. So every game is unlicensed, be it Cave Story or Doom 3.
That's a good point, but I'd say that any DOS/Windows game published by an actual commercial publisher counts as the equivalent of "licensed for the NES"; as opposed to the many games that are self-published on the internet.
For example, Commander Keen counts as the equivalent of licensed (as it is published commercially by Apogee), as does Doom 3 (published by Activision), whereas "My own tetris clone #24601" does not.
Before the advent of Windows 8 with its store, there was no licensing for Windows. So every game is unlicensed, be it Cave Story or Doom 3.
That's a good point, but I'd say that any DOS/Windows game published by an actual commercial publisher counts as the equivalent of "licensed for the NES"; as opposed to the many games that are self-published on the internet.
For example, Commander Keen counts as the equivalent of licensed (as it is published commercially by Apogee), as does Doom 3 (published by Activision), whereas "My own tetris clone #24601" does not.
"The guy was fatally injured and wants to be covered by God's tears (rain) before he dies. God is too busy to bother because it wastes frames."
Frames 16:26
I think this mentality of "if I want something, I need to cry very loudly and shout at people higher up till they do something about it" is a serious problem with our modern society as a whole. If you want things to change, just do it. Offer something instead of demanding something. That's just my advice, you are free to completely disagree and call me an idiot, or ignore me, or whatever. There'll be no hard feeling from my side.
This, in turn though, makes authoritative figures/higher-ups ultimately pointless if everything boils down to "do it yourself" instead of the people above you... uh, doing their jobs.
Or make some small changes to a pre-existing hack and call it a new one, which is precisely what Air 2 is to Air 1.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Radiant wrote:
For example, Commander Keen counts as the equivalent of licensed (as it is published commercially by Apogee), as does Doom 3 (published by Activision), whereas "My own tetris clone #24601" does not.
Yet in the early DOS games, "My own tetris clone #24601" would be featured prominently for sale in computer stores, and possibly even bought up by a larger company.
In the early DOS days, many games where written together by 1-3 friends as a hobby on the side, yet sold commercially at some point.
For The Microsoft Entertainment Pack for example, Microsoft found a series of games developed for Windows by a single person, and bought them all up and put them in a single compilation.
As time progressed, the PC platform ended up showing a large divide between the hobbyists and the commercial as you describe, but way back, they started out being the same thing.
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.
For example, Commander Keen counts as the equivalent of licensed (as it is published commercially by Apogee), as does Doom 3 (published by Activision), whereas "My own tetris clone #24601" does not.
Yet in the early DOS games, "My own tetris clone #24601" would be featured prominently for sale in computer stores, and possibly even bought up by a larger company.
In the early DOS days, many games where written together by 1-3 friends as a hobby on the side, yet sold commercially at some point.
For The Microsoft Entertainment Pack for example, Microsoft found a series of games developed for Windows by a single person, and bought them all up and put them in a single compilation.
As time progressed, the PC platform ended up showing a large divide between the hobbyists and the commercial as you describe, but way back, they started out being the same thing.
Two Johns; Two Carmacks; Three People: The Game.
"The guy was fatally injured and wants to be covered by God's tears (rain) before he dies. God is too busy to bother because it wastes frames."
Frames 16:26
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Dyshonest wrote:
Or make some small changes to a pre-existing hack and call it a new one, which is precisely what Air 2 is to Air 1.
Um... no? Air 2 is completely different from 1.
How so? Looks the same to me.
Dyshonest wrote:
And Mario 2j was to Mario 1.
Oh, but it had "official" quality control.
They had quality control, but also were very different games, in their levels, in some graphics, in the physics engine for Luigi, in having wind, in having upside down pipes, in having backwards warps, in having poison mushrooms, need I go on?
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.
Or make some small changes to a pre-existing hack and call it a new one, which is precisely what Air 2 is to Air 1.
Um... no? Air 2 is completely different from 1.
How so? Looks the same to me.
Dyshonest wrote:
And Mario 2j was to Mario 1.
Oh, but it had "official" quality control.
They had quality control, but also were very different games, in their levels, in some graphics, in the physics engine for Luigi, in having wind, in having upside down pipes, in having backwards warps, in having poison mushrooms, need I go on?
That's quite unfortunate, do you have a history of eyesight problems? I am pretty sure a game revolving around flight is vastly different than one that is not.
That differentiates itself from a ROM hack... how?
Wasn't Bible Adventures an unlicensed game but was made by a legitimate publisher?
Well, then that would make it eligible for running on TASvideos.
I didn't say that "no unlicensed game may go on TASvideos". Rather, I said that "licensed games may go on TASvideos (if the run is good)" and unlicensed ones need to be judged in some other way.
Nach wrote:
Yet in the early DOS games, "My own tetris clone #24601" would be featured prominently for sale in computer stores, and possibly even bought up by a larger company.
Sure. But if a game is featured prominently in computer stores, then it should easily be notable enough for a run on the site here. Likewise if it got bought up by a larger company.
My point is that these aren't criteria to exclude large amounts of games, but rather that games must show a reason to be included on the site. An official license (e.g. Super Metroid) is such a reason. Being extremely famous (e.g. Cave Story) is another such a reason. If a game is neither licensed nor famous, well perhaps there's another reason to include it anyway, but if we can't find such a reason, the game doesn't get a run on TASvideos. Here's some precedent for that.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Dyshonest wrote:
That's quite unfortunate, do you have a history of eyesight problems?
I do, thank you for asking.
Dyshonest wrote:
I am pretty sure a game revolving around flight is vastly different than one that is not.
Yet you fail to see that the levels are identical and the only large difference is whether you can midair jump or not? You don't see how one hacked a slight feature in the other and called it a day?
Dyshonest wrote:
That differentiates itself from a ROM hack... how?
That you're equating the differences between Air 1 and Air 2 with SMB and SMB2J has made you lose all credibility in my eyes, my rather poor eyes at that.
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.
Wasn't Bible Adventures an unlicensed game but was made by a legitimate publisher?
Well, then that would make it eligible for running on TASvideos.
I didn't say that "no unlicensed game may go on TASvideos". Rather, I said that "licensed games may go on TASvideos (if the run is good)" and unlicensed ones need to be judged in some other way.
Nach wrote:
Yet in the early DOS games, "My own tetris clone #24601" would be featured prominently for sale in computer stores, and possibly even bought up by a larger company.
Sure. But if a game is featured prominently in computer stores, then it should easily be notable enough for a run on the site here. Likewise if it got bought up by a larger company.
My point is that these aren't criteria to exclude large amounts of games, but rather that games must show a reason to be included on the site. An official license (e.g. Super Metroid) is such a reason. Being extremely famous (e.g. Cave Story) is another such a reason. If a game is neither licensed nor famous, well perhaps there's another reason to include it anyway, but if we can't find such a reason, the game doesn't get a run on TASvideos. Here's some precedent for that.
Air 1 and 2 showed their reason to be included by getting published.
Nach wrote:
I do, thank you for asking.
We could totally be BFFs!
"The guy was fatally injured and wants to be covered by God's tears (rain) before he dies. God is too busy to bother because it wastes frames."
Frames 16:26
Air 1 and 2 showed their reason to be included by getting published.
Please show me a source for that. Published by whom, and where?
It got obsoleted.
"The guy was fatally injured and wants to be covered by God's tears (rain) before he dies. God is too busy to bother because it wastes frames."
Frames 16:26
Air 1 and 2 showed their reason to be included by getting published.
Please show me a source for that. Published by whom, and where?
It got obsoleted.
You didn't answer my question. You've just implied that Air 2 has been published by some commercial entity equivalent to Apogee or Activision. I'm really curious as to when that happened, please show me a source of that.
