Joined: 11/18/2006
Posts: 2426
Location: Back where I belong
If you want to be anal about it, speed is distance measured divided by time measured (x/t), velocity is the same, but with a vector component measuring direction. So no, it's not subjective. Neither is length of movie, whether it be measured in frames, seconds, whatever. How long a movie feels is subjective, due to many immeasurable components (entertainment level, concentration level, interest in subject, outside distractions, etc.).
In any case, stuff like this is why some members don't show up much any more, with good reason. Simmer down guys, don't take things too personally, and try to defuse (unconstructive) arguments instead of ignite them. In the big scheme, it really doesn't matter much.
Too much focus on numbers and times.
For me, it's like taking the scenic route, and blowing past it at 1000mph or something. As opposed to, you know, enjoying it.
Well, the obsession is a good thing in terms of getting better times, you know. But what do you want the site to be about, Xkeeper? Are you saying the videos should be a little closer to video walkthroughs?
put yourself in my rocketpack if that poochie is one outrageous dude
So I like ranting because I think where Nesvideos is going sucks, and will probably continue to do so until the "post reply" button stops working.
And how much do you think you have achieved by doing that?
Who knows? Perhaps nothing.
But maybe other people listen. Perhaps it gets people to think.
Maybe the results are not visible at first glance (i.e. hordes of people following me). Maybe there are no results, other than widespread hatred. I guess we'll never know, but at least it's something, rather than sitting here and watching a community I enjoy stop being an interesting place to visit.
Bag of Magic Food wrote:
Well, the obsession is a good thing in terms of getting better times, you know. But what do you want the site to be about, Xkeeper? Are you saying the videos should be a little closer to video walkthroughs?
My main desire for this site has always been to see it return to Tool-Assisted Superplay Movies, instead of Tool-Assisted Speedruns.
Better times do not always make better movies.
Well, how do you define "superplay"? Is it like just a collection of cool tricks you can do in a game, and "beating" the game is secondary?
Aiming to show something interesting, entertaining, amusing, whatever, without obsessing over how fast it is to the point these other qualities suffer.
A good example that jumps immediately to mind is River City Ransom. Player 2 is just suicided at every screen but dragged in to fight bosses occasionally, making the run utterly boring ("Oh look, he's dying again, suprise").
Okay, that sounds fine, although I think Baxter had a good point that "Aims for maximum entertainment and amusement" is a little harder to judge sometimes.
put yourself in my rocketpack if that poochie is one outrageous dude
And how much do you think you have achieved by doing that?
I think it's good for xkeeper and others to express both their approvals and concerns on the site, even if it doesn't cause much change. Many people do this, including you moozooh, with Super Metroid and in-game time, and of course myself, who has complained more than most. We just go about it in slightly different ways / degrees. Really, we're all just bitching for the sake of it. And isn't that what's important? :D
<Swordless> Go hug a tree, you vegetarian (I bet you really are one)
I think it's good for xkeeper and others to express both their approvals and concerns on the site, even if it doesn't cause much change.
Right. I would point out that it's better for every possible constructive purpose to do that when and where appropriate, isn't it? I wouldn't want to drag the ingame/realtime discussion to topics that have nothing to do with it. Also, rant bandwagon (one person rants, other joins with a different subject) is never constructive.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
I think the trouble with games like Super Metroid (and I only know to well myself) given the fact that its immenceslely popular. That pretty much anyone voting, whose a fan of the game will vote yes to pretty much any catagory or run given the fact that its decently optimized. To put it in the simpliest terms to Moozooh (I somehow think he'll entirely look over this point or take it out of context), if OoT had a timer which showed at the end with cutscenes and certain texts not counting towards the ingame time, would you accept a different run which doesn't skip those cutscenes and text just because it lowered the ingame time even though there is a real time run which skips them, but doing so takes longer in terms ingame time.
I think the trouble with games like Super Metroid (and I only know to well myself) given the fact that its immenceslely popular. That pretty much anyone voting, whose a fan of the game will vote yes to pretty much any catagory or run given the fact that its decently optimized. To put it in the simpliest terms to Moozooh (I somehow think he'll entirely look over this point or take it out of context), if OoT had a timer which showed at the end with cutscenes and certain texts not counting towards the ingame time, would you accept a different run which doesn't skip those cutscenes and text just because it lowered the ingame time even though there is a real time run which skips them, but doing so takes longer in terms ingame time.
I understand your point.
This particular route in regards to realtime/ingame tradeoffs is about a minute longer than the corresponding realtime-based run. Going by OoT's orders of magnitude, a three minute tradeoff in two hour long run wouldn't be noticeable to me (I'd be tired of watching a two hour run no matter what the game is, believe me). Furthermore, if it allowed different (faster) tricks between the cutscenes — well, basically, if it corresponded to qualities listed here, it would have probably been even more enjoyable, as long as it kept the tradeoff that low. I can't say for sure because I don't like the game and thus don't know it well.
However, I do remember the Sonic run, one of major reasons for lack of entertainment in which was aiming for realtime (and I agree with it), resulting in ugly slowdowns. It puzzles me that aiming for ingame time in Sonic games is enjoyable and widely accepted despite the huge-ass delays, and deemed slow and boring in Super Metroid, which also has internal timer with invisible fractions.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
My main desire for this site has always been to see it return to Tool-Assisted Superplay Movies, instead of Tool-Assisted Speedruns.
I think it's weird how we remember the same site's history so differently. I always thought that originally, NESVideos was all about finding the shortest time to beat any game (which we merely weren't as successful at before), but later people got tired of that and wanted to see something other than speed. So that would be basically the exact opposite direction of where you're saying it's headed.
Maybe what's going on is that we all came to this site, saw some of its videos, and then proceeded to project our own notions of what it's all about onto it. And now we're finding out that we all thought something different.
put yourself in my rocketpack if that poochie is one outrageous dude
Well, how do you define "superplay"? Is it like just a collection of cool tricks you can do in a game, and "beating" the game is secondary?
Aiming to show something interesting, entertaining, amusing, whatever, without obsessing over how fast it is to the point these other qualities suffer.
A good example that jumps immediately to mind is River City Ransom. Player 2 is just suicided at every screen but dragged in to fight bosses occasionally, making the run utterly boring ("Oh look, he's dying again, suprise").
As the creator of the run is question, I must take issue with you on this. How is it less entertaining to show a strange glitch which speeds up the run significantly? Without suicide, the running parts are about 25% slower. The suicide bug is a strange graphics glitch, and is a lot more entertaining than having the 2 characters simply run along without anything interesting happening.
As the creator of the run is question, I must take issue with you on this. How is it less entertaining to show a strange glitch which speeds up the run significantly? Without suicide, the running parts are about 25% slower. The suicide bug is a strange graphics glitch, and is a lot more entertaining than having the 2 characters simply run along without anything interesting happening.
For the 100th time:
warning: huge text belowSPEED DOES NOT EQUATE TO ENTERTAINMENTwarning: huge text above
If you need any proof that there are other ways to create entertainment in movies other than "being 25% faster", I recommend watching Mission Illogical.
And on that note, read... "2 characters running along without anything interesting happening". Maybe you should take that oppertunity to do something interesting.
So I like ranting because I think where Nesvideos is going sucks, and will probably continue to do so until the "post reply" button stops working.
