Xkeeper, I don't know why time and time again you choose to bring this subject. I'll simply state that your comparisions with the past are completely hoax. In the early days of the site, there was complete focus on being as fast as possible. Most runs didn't have any style or contain any trade offs, Many of the runs were boring *cough* Jaws *cough* Circus Charlie *cough*. Entertainment over the years has come more and more into focus, Nowadays, there are many runs which put a lot of emphasis on being stylistic or sacrifice a few frames not to irritate the viewer, or do something mildly amusing.
At the same time, however, there was more actual gameplay. For example, the Mario 64 16-star run.
It got replaced with the 0-star run, which is basically BLJ BLJ BLJ Bowser stage BLJ BLJ BLJ repeat three times.
Also, hey, if you disagree, so what? By all means, feel free. It's not like one person's opinion is going to change anything.
Joined: 11/18/2006
Posts: 2426
Location: Back where I belong
Xkeeper wrote:
If it wasn't for the authors, that movie would not have been published.
So that still leaves 9 more movies that made it, despite having other authors. And when was the last time you can remember that a movie which clearly aimed for entertainment over speed was rejected? The lack of "entertainment only" runs is not the fault of the judges or the site, it is the fault of the audience, most of which choose not to make those types of runs. Considering that you are part of that audience, you should start blaming yourself too.
Most of these games would be exceptionally boring if played for speed, to the point it would be basically x minutes of the exact same thing over and over.
I'm also fairly positive that many of these movies had several rejected precursors. Hell, the Track & Field one was accepted to get rid of the mess of other movies it obsoleted.
And when was the last time you can remember that a movie which clearly aimed for entertainment over speed was rejected?
Why would somebody submit a movie that was more likely to be rejected than published? I've seen enough threads where "Well, this won't be published, but I'll work on it just to see it completed".
The lack of "entertainment only" runs is not the fault of the judges or the site, it is the fault of the audience, most of which choose not to make those types of runs. Considering that you are part of that audience, you should start blaming yourself too.
I am not a TASer; it is like asking a novice to fix a feature in a program he uses (oh wait, that's the OSS community, lolol).
That said, I actually have put my nonexistant skills to use and submitted a TAS for the site that aimed mostly for entertainment (e.g. using only one flipper, aiming more for impressive shots than fast kills), etc.
I agree with Warp that the question should be changed. I dislike lots of the movies I think should be published because I understand how many others would like them.
moozooh wrote:
Kuwaga wrote:
the 10s of the voters who give lower votes in average should count more than 10s of others
Most of these games would be exceptionally boring if played for speed, to the point it would be basically x minutes of the exact same thing over and over.
And the majority of games would be exceptionally boring if played for anything but speed. TASvideos isn't theLet's Play forum....
You bring up the 16 star Mario Run. The goal of that run, when it was made, was not to get 16 stars. It was meant to beat the game as fast as possible, which at the time, meant collecting 16 stars. Thus, it is in the same category as the 1 and 0 star runs. I can guarentee, if the authors of the 16 star runs could have done it in 15, they would NOT have gone for the 16th star for entertainment over speed purposes.
There is a run that technically trades speed for the entertainment of star collection; the 120 star run. Why not just watch that if you want to see star collection?
That is the same for any 100% run.
And yes, while the 100% runs also aim for speed and perfection, the videos wouldn't be TASes if they didn't aim for something above human capabilities.
Also, your .7% number is due to mmbossman not pointing out EVERY SINGLE entertainment run, like family feud, the megaman dual and quad run, any 100% run on this site, and ones I'm sure I'm forgetting.
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.
You bring up the 16 star Mario Run. The goal of that run, when it was made, was not to get 16 stars. It was meant to beat the game as fast as possible, which at the time, meant collecting 16 stars. Thus, it is in the same category as the 1 and 0 star runs. I can guarentee, if the authors of the 16 star runs could have done it in 15, they would NOT have gone for the 16th star for entertainment over speed purposes.
And that is exactly Xkeeper's complaint.
DarkKobold wrote:
There is a run that technically trades speed for the entertainment of star collection; the 120 star run. Why not just watch that if you want to see star collection?
Why can't there be middle ground between 90 seconds of skipping everything and 90 minutes of doing everything over and over 8 times?
DarkKobold wrote:
And yes, while the 100% runs also aim for speed and perfection, the videos wouldn't be TASes if they didn't aim for something above human capabilities.
The complaint isn't that the runs aim to be fast, it's that they do it to the exclusion of all other concerns.
DarkKobold wrote:
Also, your .7% number is due to mmbossman not pointing out EVERY SINGLE entertainment run, like family feud, the megaman dual and quad run, any 100% run on this site, and ones I'm sure I'm forgetting.
Quadrun was a massive disappointment precisely because it was optimized to the point that it doesn't even look like the games are using the same input. Which means that to watch it you effectively have to concentrate equally on all four screens at the same time, because Megaman isn't going to be doing the same thing on any two of them.
Dualrun worked because both megamans were generally doing the same thing at any given time. When you remove that, the run becomes a pointless cacophony.
The problem with Xkeeper's arguement is his decision to focus solely on arguing against speed. Speed itself isn't the problem, nor is it the only problematic goal. The problem is that people are focusing on the goal checklist and never considering anything else.
All that matters is whether it consistently and efficiently achieves the goals the other sets forth, and whether the game is popular.
It doesn't matter if having to sit through the whole movie without the aid of a fast-forward device would put a caffeinated child into a coma, as long as it consistently achieves its checklist of non-arbitrary goals.
How fleeting are all human passions compared with the massive continuity of ducks.
While we're at it, I can tell my opinion on the questions. The reason "do you like it" was a good question is that the audience — those guys and gals that actually watch movies and stuff — can mainly like or dislike the site's content. The latter should be liked by the audience, otherwise the site is being useless. Therefore, the question was actually right. The site isn't about publishing, it's about likable content.
"Do you think this should be published" is a kind of question for the judge to answer. However, in this particular case, what exactly do we need judges for if we have the audience play their role? Shouldn't we abolish the judgment system altogether as redundant, much to Enhasa's joy? I'm not saying this is necesarily a good idea, but I am asking for opinions on why should it stay if the question is asked this way.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
submitted a TAS for the site that aimed mostly for entertainment (e.g. using only one flipper, aiming more for impressive shots than fast kills), etc.
Submission 1385, Xkeeper's NES Pinball Quest wrote:
* Aims for fastest time...
* ...but trades a few frames now and then for entertainment.
Emphasis mine.
That's odd; though I do distinctly remember changing the categories on the site to "Aims for entertainment" (then noticing they got changed back later).
Regardless, even with that, it aims to be fast only to avoid having long scenes where nothing is happening. But you can interpret that however you wish, I guess.
upthorn wrote:
words words words
Actually, one of my bigger problems is managing to fudge up my arguments pretty badly. I really had the same ideas as what you said, but... bleh. I'm very bad at debating.
That said, I agree with your post completely -- and the quad run bored me to incredible levels because the games were almost entirely out of sync.
As evidence of what a good quad run looks like, take this. They have their occasional desync moments, but that's to be expected. For the most part it's very, very easy to tell they're all synced to the same input.
moozoh wrote:
While we're at it, I can tell my opinion on the questions. The reason "do you like it" was a good question is that the audience — those guys and gals that actually watch movies and stuff — can mainly like or dislike the site's content. The latter should be liked by the audience, otherwise the site is being useless. Therefore, the question was actually right. The site isn't about publishing, it's about likable content.
"Do you think this should be published" is a kind of question for the judge to answer. However, in this particular case, what exactly do we need judges for if we have the audience play their role? Shouldn't we abolish the judgment system altogether as redundant, much to Enhasa's joy? I'm not saying this is necesarily a good idea, but I am asking for opinions on why should it stay if the question is asked this way.[/quote]
Just "liking" a movie doesn't tell that much. You can like a movie that has some very apparent mistakes, which the author needs to deal with before the movie is published. A movie can be slower than a previous run... a movie can even desync for everyone, and still be likeable up to the point of desync. A movie can be likeable while it's goals are so similar to a published movie on the site, that it's only likeable for the same reasons as the published movie.
Similar is true for movies that are disliked. They might still be an improvement (both timewise and entertainmentwise) to a published movie, but still not very interesting to you. Should you vote no to this movie?
There is still a very distinct difference between a judge, and someone who votes. A judge actually decides, while a voter gives advice. In the end, it's all about what is being posted anyway. The votes are to give the judge a good indication... they can go against the votes.
A judge's job is to read the discussion, not the poll, and any judge worth their bit in the database would see that the movie was desyncing for people and reject the movie.
The rest of your argument follows similarly.
A judge's job is to read the discussion, not the poll
The poll is specifically there for judges, to get a fast impression of what people think about the movie.
Xkeeper wrote:
and any judge worth their bit in the database would see that the movie was desyncing for people and reject the movie.
The rest of your argument follows similarly.
It doesn't detract from the fact that people are answering "Should this movie be published?" regardless of what the question says.
Something like "I don't think this movie should be published, voting yes!" sounds a bit strange.
Idea: How about a compromise: Have both questions at the same time.
This would actually be a bit akin to the previous entertainment/technical quality distinction in the voting. The "did you like the movie?" is asking for the entertainment value and "should it be published?" would be, sort of, asking for the technical quality (not so much about the technical quality of the movie in the same way as with the ratings, but technical quality in the sense that it meets the minimum standards for publication).
And while at it, make both questions have the 5 suggested answers (ie. yes, weak yes, etc.)
Idea: How about a compromise: Have both questions at the same time.
And while at it, make both questions have the 5 suggested answers (ie. yes, weak yes, etc.)
Since I agree too, I'll just go ahead and quote myself from the past, when I made this suggestion of a 2-dimensional poll:
nineko wrote:
As for suggestions about how the voting system should be, what about if we go with mmbossman's rubric? Each submission can be equipped with a 3x3 grid (or 5x5 to add more resolution, though I would avoid that). Then, for counting purposes, there are two feasible ways: either count the individual votes like a normal poll, or calculate the weighted average and display the position on a graph. Here is a quick mockup:
1) the voting options
2) the results in a poll fashion
3) the results in a graphic fashion
Since I agree too, I'll just go ahead and quote myself from the past, when I made this suggestion of a 2-dimensional poll:
While your suggestion definitely has merit, it doesn't really offer the "weak yes/no" answers as suggested. Also as laid out, it's a bit difficult to visualize what you are really answering to. Maybe just two separate questions with their own radio buttons could be better even from a GUI point of view.
Idea: How about a compromise: Have both questions at the same time.
And while at it, make both questions have the 5 suggested answers (ie. yes, weak yes, etc.)
This idea is probably the best compromise. I agree with it.
But I still believe ratings should be normalized regardless.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Sure, both questions is fine.
The normalizing is a good idea no matter what voting or rating system is decided upon.
nineko's picture seems like the recent rating system, just with a forced technical score (which isn't a good thing).
Emulator Coder, Site Developer, Site Owner, Expert player
(3599)
Joined: 11/3/2004
Posts: 4739
Location: Tennessee
I think ratings for a submission is a bad idea and should not return. However, the published movie ratings need to be normalized (many people posting here seem to agree). Just want to clarify that distinction.
As for submissions.
1) Weak yes and weak no might be ok, but that starts to inch it closer to the very rating system that failed so much so I am weary of it.
2) The polll question probably doesn't really end up mattering. People use it for either question freely and tend to clarify what they were answering with their posts. We could change it but I don't think it is going to change the outcome of any decisions.
3) Yes, the judge should make the final decision as far as site requirements. The judge just needs to know whether or not most people tend to enjoy watching it; to better aid that decision. I'd be opposed to taking this away. I guess I wouldn't be opposed to adding an additional question as long as people realize that a majority of "yes,publish this" will not necessarily yield a publication.
Baxter: no, it's like the rating system, but with 3 levels of quantization on each axis instead of 101 (e.g. 1, 2, 3 instead of 0.0 to 10.0).
Warp: the 3 levels can be made 5 :P
Or 7, 9, 11, ... just not 101 or we would go back to where we were before.
As for submissions.
1) Weak yes and weak no might be ok, but that starts to inch it closer to the very rating system that failed so much so I am weary of it.
Differences being
- "Weak" votes were already being cast long before the rating system
- They are very clear on purpose
- 5 steps is a far cry from 100
You also don't have to deal with the "100 points -> school grades" where anything below 75% starts to dip into "poor" territory.
I guess I wouldn't be opposed to adding an additional question as long as people realize that a majority of "yes,publish this" will not necessarily yield a publication.
And this is why it would be better changed to "Did you like this movie", otherwise you're really giving the "This had x yyy votes, why was it zzzzzzzz'd" argument a lot more traction.
1) the voting options 2) the results in a poll fashion 3) the results in a graphic fashion
