Posts for Baxter

Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player (1404)
Joined: 5/31/2004
Posts: 1821
Ah right... I had forgotten about 1 player influencing the amount of enemies...
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player (1404)
Joined: 5/31/2004
Posts: 1821
Nice wip :), but I have some questions. You killed your turtle twice without changing the turtle, what's the use of this? Wouldn't killing a turtle be faster right after a wave of enemies, before the screen starts scrolling, instead of when the screen is scrolling? Isn't killing an enemy with Don's supermove faster than throwing them, and wouldn't it be faster then to at least kill the last enemy with this movie, instead of the throw? (if I remember correctly, Don and Leo's supermoves makes the enemies fly relatively low, and kills enemies like 10 frames faster than Mich's and Raph's supermoves)
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player (1404)
Joined: 5/31/2004
Posts: 1821
Great run! As JXQ said, the style choices were very nice :) I personally prefer the warpless run over the warp run.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player (1404)
Joined: 5/31/2004
Posts: 1821
Keep going! I'm interested in seeing an improvement to this run :)
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player (1404)
Joined: 5/31/2004
Posts: 1821
Nice improvement, good job :) Xipo: Will you please consider making a TAS for G.I. Joe - The Atlantis Factor
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player (1404)
Joined: 5/31/2004
Posts: 1821
Very nice improvement, clear yes vote. (Now do the 100% run please :P)
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player (1404)
Joined: 5/31/2004
Posts: 1821
Dromiceius wrote:
How about if there were a form on the main page that allows anyone to add TAS ideas? It would have a "ROM name" field and a "Goal description" field. There could a +/- rating system, like with the youtube comments. Maybe a similar function to allow people to "claim" ideas. The output could be put into a table, like... Terranigma [E] | 100% run | +2 approval | 0 TASers have claimed this run Needless to say, there would also have to be a lot of filtering of bad and redundant input. I only suggest this because it seems like it would be way less work in the long run than manually editing a page on the wiki. Not to mention the fact that the general public would have access to it, rather than just the core members of this forum.
It's very true that the page would be hard to maintain by editors, and that this would be a solution. This would also kinda show how much the ideas that are put forward wanted, which is also cool. It would be a lot of work probably to implement it though :S
Aqfaq wrote:
What do you think about the Genesis Game List: http://tasvideos.org/Aqfaq.html Has it been useful to anyone? Should it be moved to its own page (ListOfIdeas/Genesis for example) instead of being on my personal user page? (I have PMed Bisqwit about this a few days ago, but he has not read the message yet.)
I think the page is nice, it shows exactly which games are done for that particular console, and which ones aren't. It could help people pick new projects, and it also is practical for being directly linked to submissions. I however don't think it should be named anything like "ListOfIdeas", since most of the games are not well suited for TASing (a smaller list of really good ideas seems better to me that suggesting all games that haven't been done). As to if the page is useful... I personally am not really into Genesis games (since I've never played any of them), so I can't really judge if the page is useful. Maybe it is to other people though.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player (1404)
Joined: 5/31/2004
Posts: 1821
I agree with what adelikat said. It's a pity the character moves so slow, but considering the difficulty, it looks impressive. Also giving it a yes.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player (1404)
Joined: 5/31/2004
Posts: 1821
Warp wrote:
Maybe move them to a subsection in that page titled "games being currently worked on" or something similar, and perhaps mention who is working on that game.
Not a bad idea. I'd be interested in such a page, it would give a nice overview. It would however always be a very incomplete list. AKA: This is not a random feature request thread.
Post subject: ListOfIdeas-page
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player (1404)
Joined: 5/31/2004
Posts: 1821
http://tasvideos.org/ListOfIdeas.html This page has been out of date for quite some time. Maybe it was never really up to date, or really any good. It's a pity, since I think the page could be quite useful. More and more TASes have already been done, it's would be nice to have a place where good ideas for TASing are listed. I created this thread, to have a place for quite a few things: - Suggestions of things/ideas that should be added to the page - Suggestions of things/ideas that should be removed from the page - Suggestions of changes to the page in general Suggestions of either of these things are very welcome, and could help improve the page. Not only suggestions of these things are helpful, but discussion about them probably is also. Maybe some game is suggested just because someone likes the game. This does not mean that it is suitable for TASing for instance. It would be nice to have arguments for why a certain game should be added/removed. I think this is important, because random games that not have been done being on the list could be really annoying for a person who thinks 'the site' regards it as a good idea. I remember a TAS being rejected for poor game choice, and then the author mentioned it was listed on the ListOfIdeas. Things like this should be avoided. Here are some things about the page which would be good to have some opinions about: - Should a TAS of a game that is listed on the ListOfIdeas always be highly likely to be a published? (pro: this will avoid situations like the one mentioned before, con: some random ideas which might be cool will go unnoticed) - What about runs that are being worked on? Should they still be listed, or should they be removed? Currently they are listed in italics, but is this a good idea? People who don't read the small line of text that says that ideas in italics are being worked on might think that these games are being suggested even more than the others. If for instance Bisqwit is working on Lunar Ball, is it still good to suggest this movie to other people (or even perhaps newcomers). It might be good to either remove ideas that are seriously being worked on, or list them in perhaps list them in grey or something? - What about improvements to movies that are already published on the site? I'm not 100% sure, but I think currently there are only a few of these listed. They are listed just as other games, that haven't been done before. If a published TAS is known to be sloppy, or if a lot of improvements have been found, should it also be listed on the list of ideas? Should they be listed in between the other ideas (maybe with another color or whatever), or have a seperate list? - Which suggestions should definately be removed? For instance, Super Mario Kart 2 players might be a nice movie to watch... but it's kinda unclear what the goals would be, and whatnot else. It would a LOT of work, and might not be received that well due to unclear goals. Should it really be listed? (there are a lot more 2 player suggestions) - Which suggestions should be added, and why? - Not sure, but is there an arcade rerecording emulator, with movie files that are officially accepted at the site? If not, I'd say the "Arcade" section should be removed. - How should certain objectives for a game be listed. At this point the page is pretty inconsistent about it. Sometimes, the objective (like for instance 2 players, or hard mode) is written right after the game. Sometimes it has a sublist below the game. Same goes with multiple games of one sort. Sometimes it lists "Super Bomberman 3, 4, 5", sometimes it lists "Rockman World (GB Mega Man) series:", and lists which parts in a sublist.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player (1404)
Joined: 5/31/2004
Posts: 1821
You should have submitted today... 11:11 movie on 11:11 :P Anyway, the run is absolutely awesome, I love this game (also, you should keep making cool TASes, even if there are no more NES Ninja Gaiden games left).
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player (1404)
Joined: 5/31/2004
Posts: 1821
Very entertaining... especially after the first reset. Voting yes.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player (1404)
Joined: 5/31/2004
Posts: 1821
AngerFist wrote:
In my opinion, listing merely 3 games that you would not consider tasing does not warrant creating a topic.
He was probably hoping others would list games as well :P Edit: A topic which would list games/idea suitable for TASing (that haven't been done yet) would be more useful (although it could very well be that such a topic already exists... either way, the ListOfIdeas seems outdated.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player (1404)
Joined: 5/31/2004
Posts: 1821
Funny... Windows Movie Maker is also in that list :P
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player (1404)
Joined: 5/31/2004
Posts: 1821
Speedrunning is more and more acknowledged by the people who are creating games. Highscores and fastest times have always been there, but now they seem to realize that it's even more interesting (to other people) how how this highscore/fastest time is made. Super Smash Bros: Brawl for instance has options to record your break the targets attempt and send it to friends... Do you think that this trend will continue, so that eventually slowdown and rerecords options will be added inside the games, so competitive TASing is possible for everyone, just like competitive speedrunning (and setting records non tool-assisted) is now?
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player (1404)
Joined: 5/31/2004
Posts: 1821
While it might be a pity if some non-intended techniques wouldn't be present anymore, I don't think you can say it would make the game unsuited for progamers. I think it's just about being good at a game with whatever possibilities the game provides.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player (1404)
Joined: 5/31/2004
Posts: 1821
MUGG wrote:
What a shame the game doesn't offer anything to the progamers like in Melee.
What do you mean?
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player (1404)
Joined: 5/31/2004
Posts: 1821
Rridgway wrote:
Science is just a theory we accept as correct, remember that.
I don't know if you could call it just a theory we accept as correct. A good scientific theory is able to explain why the experimental data was found that was found. It will also be able to make predictions to what will be found if experiments are conducted slightly different. It might even make predictions of results of completely different experiments. Some theories are able to predict new experiments with accuracies that is just stupifying. You have to acknowledge that these theories hold some kind of thruth. There may very well be changes to the theory in the future to make it even better. No one is claiming that science is "finished"... that's the beauty of science.
Rridgway wrote:
A possiblility is that reality is perceived differently by everyone and that since followers of a religion believe it is true, to them it is real.
It indeed can't be proven that reality is perceived different by everyone. There is however no indication whatsoever that people preceive reality different. And how useful would it be to think someone for instance perceives blue, like you see red, and vice versa. You could argue that for instance people who are blind perceive reality differently... but you can hardly say that changes anything to what reality is. One person who sees something beautiful in a certain painting, while another person can't appreciate is at all is not perceiving reality differently. Same goes with religion. You can believe in something, but whether you believe in it or not has nothing to do with whether or not it's real.
Chamale wrote:
Some events mentioned in the Mahabharata (Indian epic) have been confirmed by physical evidence. A crater was found in an area that mentioned a massive explosion as divine intervention, for example.
Err... did you ever consider beliefs and religions were formed/created to explain things that weren't understood? People found themselves on this planet, with no ideas where they came from. There was no scientific method present at the time, not the tools we have now, and whatever else not. You still want some kind of explanation to explain some of the questions that people will wonder about. How we came to be here, why we are here, why there is some kind of giant rock falling from the skies, producing a massive explosion, and leaving a crater. It is not so terribly hard to imagine such an impact would be explained with a divine being. So do you really consider this as physical evidence for a revelation?
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player (1404)
Joined: 5/31/2004
Posts: 1821
Blublu wrote:
nfq wrote:
Blublu wrote:
I think you do not understand evolution. I suggest reading a book, or at least a good article, about it before you dismiss it completely.
I haven't bothered to read much about it because I know it's not true.
How can you possibly know it's not true if you don't even know what it is about? Anyway, you should check it out.
Completely agreed, but I think this goes for science in general for nfq:
nfq wrote:
science never understands anything entirely, they only think they do.
I'm not sure if you understand how science is 'done'. Maybe reading this might be interesting for you. I'm not sure if Bob A was responding to Blublu, but if he was, I think he doesn't know what is meant with 'theory' in science: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory#Science
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player (1404)
Joined: 5/31/2004
Posts: 1821
People have looked and looked, but there was never any evidence found that
Boco wrote:
600,000+ people
have even traveled through the desert. You would think there would be at least some kind of proof of this.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player (1404)
Joined: 5/31/2004
Posts: 1821
nfq wrote:
you know, i'm actually not even religious
That was kinda obvious. You however did respond to my questions, even though I said:
Baxter wrote:
I'm asking these questions to people who consider themselves theists
The questions weren't meant for someone like you to be answered, if they were, I wouldn't have mentioned I'm interested in answers from theists only.
nfq wrote:
i just had to make some arguments for god because i felt like there wasn't enough christians here
Arguments for god? You make it sound like you believe in god (even though it's obvious you don't), and use weak arguments no single believer would give. Good thing you posted a perfect example in this post I'm responding to:
nfq wrote:
btw, it was god who made me call you a fool, so don't blame me
Religious people (I think) believe in there being good and evil choices, and what your afterlife will be like is at least partially determined by the choices you make. If, like you suggest, everything was predetermined, people were predetermined to make bad choices. God couldn't possibly think bad of something you did, if you were predetermined to do it. I'm not even sure if you could even call it a choice. This way, your afterlife would be predetermined as well, and not influenced by yourself. I think you see this as a flaw in religious belief... and are trying to point it out by saying stuff like what I just quoted. This doesn't make sense with your statement that you are trying to make some arguments for god, because you think there are too few christians. It is this what I mean by not being sincere.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player (1404)
Joined: 5/31/2004
Posts: 1821
nfq wrote:
stuff
I didn't ask you anything for a good reason; your arguments make no sense, and your ideas are uninteresting... they also aren't sincere. There is no point in responding to them.
Dromiceius wrote:
Baxter wrote:
You think their deity would allow this?
It allows cancer and child rape. Why not?
One could give answers like it not being the same. One was directly influenced by the anti-deity, the others (rape, cancer) come from natural causes/choices. One could draw a distinction between that and say that's the reason. If an anti-deity had done something which made it unable for good souls to go to 'heaven'... the deity would probably do something about it. Cancer and rape don't prevent good souls going to heaven. (This might not sound so terribly convincing... but I'm only trying to guess what arguments could be brought up.)
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player (1404)
Joined: 5/31/2004
Posts: 1821
Rridgeway wrote:
Warp, Baxter, could you please move your debate to the Theology thread?
Well... considering this quote from Warp concerning that thread, I don't think he will do so:
Warp wrote:
This is the stupidest and most useless thread in the entire site. Just lock it, please.
At any rate, Warp doesn't seem to be able to actually read anything he doesn't want to hear, so I will stop responding to anything Warp posts from now.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player (1404)
Joined: 5/31/2004
Posts: 1821
Yes, you are repeating yourself, and not reading what I wrote...
Warp wrote:
What I said was that the reason for the insults is flawed and not rational. Thus presenting it as a logical and valid reason is a mistake. It doesn't make the insulting any more acceptable.
As I said, it was only 1 person who gave that answer. You are generalizing it. However, there does seem to be some kind of tendence with religion which makes it seem like you cannot have any critique on it, even if it are sensible arguments, and not necessarily insults.
Warp wrote:
No, the idea with that was that person A (me) says to person B "you are purposefully reading only what you want to read, ignoring the rest", to which person B counter-arguments "you are doing that right now too", as if that was a valid justification for the original deceitful way of reading. The fact that I may read deceitfully as well is in no way a valid justification or rational reason for the original deceitful reading.
As I said in my previous post:
Baxter wrote:
I have never said it was ok atheists to read what they want.
, so I'm not trying to justify it. Too bad that I doubt that even this time you will notice/understand what I'm saying
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player (1404)
Joined: 5/31/2004
Posts: 1821
Warp wrote:
Right. Because I read what I want then it's ok for atheists to read what they want. I have never understood this "justification by mimicking" argumentation. Since people A do thing X, then it's ok for people B, who oppose A, to do the same thing X. Since religious people "insult" atheists, then it's ok for atheists to insult religious people. If religious people intentionally misread text, then it's ok for atheists to misread text. If religious people present flawed arguments, then it's ok for atheists to present flawed arguments. Monkey see, monkey do.
Err... you seem to be missing something. I have never said it was ok atheists to read what they want. I also didn't say it was ok for atheists to insult religious people... that being said, your entire argument makes no sense at all. Your argument however really amazes me. For the "insulting one another" part, some people might see logic in the argument: To the question "Why do so many atheists (if it are many, can be agrued about) insult religious people?", someone answered "Because religious beliefs insult people.". This answer agrees that many atheists insult people, and indeed gives the suggestion that it's caused by doing something that has been done to them. In the case of "reading only what one wants to read", the chronological order is reversed though, since atheists supposedly read selectively first, THEN you did. You however said "Because I read what I want then it's ok for atheists to read what they want.". I'm also surprised you admitted reading selectively.