Well, if I take the same road as JXQ and adelikat, I'd love to congratulate Spezzafer whose runs are incredible, Nitsuja for his Sonic super speedy and super entertaining runs. I'd like to give two special mentions one for Gigafrost who is an incredible TAser and who pushes the limit of perfection and the other one would go to angerfist... I love his megaman runs (and special mentions to those who did them with him too !!)
I really don't see a point in this since it is all opinionated.
So, my list of top 4 players that i respect the most has always been in my profile in no specific order:
Phil, Foda, Angerfist, Bisqwit.
Also, since ii'm at it, i always had a "top 3 runs" that i like the most on my personal page with a specific order of which i like the most.
1. Dehacked's MegamanX.
2. Phil's Double dragon.
3. Bisqwit's and Shinryuu's rockman2.
Shouldn't the best author be determined using the semi-arbitrary confidence formula? Using all the votes for an author's combined submissions, naturally.
Shouldn't the best author be determined using the semi-arbitrary confidence formula? Using all the votes for an author's combined submissions, naturally.
Another possible option would maybe be to use the movie ratings?
Hmm... well, my logic is that rejected submissions should figure into the final number. If someone has ten published movies, but fifty that suck, I think that's saying something.
Hmm... well, my logic is that rejected submissions should figure into the final number. If someone has ten published movies, but fifty that suck, I think that's saying something.
Yeah it says that they've submitted 60 TAS's!! Holy crap!
atro city wrote:
This should be renamed "The ultimate ass-kissing thread".
:*
<Swordless> Go hug a tree, you vegetarian (I bet you really are one)
Emulator Coder, Site Developer, Site Owner, Expert player
(3576)
Joined: 11/3/2004
Posts: 4754
Location: Tennessee
Dromiceius wrote:
Hmm... well, my logic is that rejected submissions should figure into the final number. If someone has ten published movies, but fifty that suck, I think that's saying something.
It says that the used to suck but are much better now.
...long rant on invalidity of the top10 list Upthorn posted...
The whole point of me posting my process for generating the list was that if someone disagreed with the process, they could suggest alternatives, and/or create their own.
How fleeting are all human passions compared with the massive continuity of ducks.
Though I like the idea in theory, chances are this would lead to animosity in practice. When I started coming to this site, I found a couple runs that seemed interesting, then would check out that author's other submissions (because I assumed a certain degree of quality in execution would be maintained between runs ... which was usually the case).
The only problem with this is that selecting 10 author's as the "best" is subject to opinion, favouritism and current activity (earlier authors may be overlooked). Also, there's a good chance that other than a few names, no one would be able to agree on who should be considered the best and why.
It would probably be more feasible to rate the top 10 TAS' of all time. It's easier to qualify what should be included, and people can't feel excluded because the terms for judging what is considered "the best" can be easily defined.
Just my 2 cents though (or USD 1.754 cents if you wanna be a dick about it =P)
It would probably be more feasible to rate the top 10 TAS' of all time. It's easier to qualify what should be included, and people can't feel excluded because the terms for judging what is considered "the best" can be easily defined.
I was wondering if the rating of the movies could not be a factor of which movies deserve a star. We could settle for the fact that if a movie has above a certain rating, it deserves a star... I agree on the fact that if only two people rated a movie it's not very meaningful so couldn't we also settle for a minimum votes...
Just a thought (maybe 2 cents too)
It would probably be more feasible to rate the top 10 TAS' of all time. It's easier to qualify what should be included, and people can't feel excluded because the terms for judging what is considered "the best" can be easily defined.
I was wondering if the rating of the movies could not be a factor of which movies deserve a star. We could settle for the fact that if a movie has above a certain rating, it deserves a star... I agree on the fact that if only two people rated a movie it's not very meaningful so couldn't we also settle for a minimum votes...
Just a thought (maybe 2 cents too)
Stars aren't Best TASes though, they're TASes recommended for first-time viewers. Arguably another "official award" for highly rated/popular movies might be a good thing, but I'm not so sure it's needed.
Of course speculation and discussion is always fun though.
It would probably be more feasible to rate the top 10 TAS' of all time. It's easier to qualify what should be included, and people can't feel excluded because the terms for judging what is considered "the best" can be easily defined.
I was wondering if the rating of the movies could not be a factor of which movies deserve a star. We could settle for the fact that if a movie has above a certain rating, it deserves a star... I agree on the fact that if only two people rated a movie it's not very meaningful so couldn't we also settle for a minimum votes...
Just a thought (maybe 2 cents too)
Stars aren't Best TASes though, they're TASes recommended for first-time viewers. Arguably another "official award" for highly rated/popular movies might be a good thing, but I'm not so sure it's needed.
Of course speculation and discussion is always fun though.
Yes, that's true, though I guess that well-rated movies are often popular and the good rating should mean that they are at least entertaining or quite technical so they coul also be recommended for first-time viewers...
I still do not know what to think about the moon-marked movies (I did not check if the moon was still used)
It would probably be more feasible to rate the top 10 TAS' of all time. It's easier to qualify what should be included, and people can't feel excluded because the terms for judging what is considered "the best" can be easily defined.
I was wondering if the rating of the movies could not be a factor of which movies deserve a star. We could settle for the fact that if a movie has above a certain rating, it deserves a star... I agree on the fact that if only two people rated a movie it's not very meaningful so couldn't we also settle for a minimum votes...
Just a thought (maybe 2 cents too)
Stars aren't Best TASes though, they're TASes recommended for first-time viewers. Arguably another "official award" for highly rated/popular movies might be a good thing, but I'm not so sure it's needed.
Of course speculation and discussion is always fun though.
Yes, that's true, though I guess that well-rated movies are often popular and the good rating should mean that they are at least entertaining or quite technical so they coul also be recommended for first-time viewers...
I still do not know what to think about the moon-marked movies (I did not check if the moon was still used)
In general sure but far from always.
As for the moons, they're only visible on newly published movies, and once it (the new movie) disappears from the front page (news section on the right), the moon doesn't appear anywhere.
Edited for clarity.
