I know this dead horse has been beaten more than enough, but please allow me to present a different perspective on the issue. (Essay follows.)
Many people complain how TASes "break" the games so badly that they basically become unrecognizable pieces of glitches and garbage until there's basically nothing of actual gameplay left to watch. They would want "entertainment runs" which do not aim for absolute maximal speed, but which do something entertaining and interesting, even if it's not speedwise optimal.
If one would not know better, one could get the impression that the vast majority of TASes abuse bugs and glitches that badly, that the majority of TASes are just random glitchfests with no discernible gameplay and which cannot be understood nor enjoyed without extensive knowledge about what is going on in the run.
However, be honest: Exactly how many of the about 500 published movies are such glitchfests? How many of the about 500 movies would benefit from "entertainment runs" which do not aim for maximal speed? 10? Maybe 20? That's less than 5% of all published movies.
Let's take a concrete example: The quintessential old console game, Super Mario Bros. Exactly how would a TAS of this game benefit from not aiming at maximal speed? Exactly how would a run of this game become more entertaining by fooling around instead of trying to complete the game as superhumanly fast as possible? You could maybe come up with some ideas, but would it really make the run better and more enjoyable and entertaining?
How about Super Mario Bros 2? Or the third. Or basically any of the other hundreds of games which do are not heavily glitch-abused? Exactly how would they benefit from slower runs?
There are only a few published runs which are both extreme glitchfests and do not have less-glitched alternative publications (mainly Megaman 1 and 2 come to mind). The vast majority of published TASes are not glitched beyond recognition, and even from the few which are, there often are non-glitched alternatives (eg. 100% completion runs). From the non-glitchfest runs not many would benefit from non-speed completions, from an entertainment point of view.
Should we really change the whole philosophy of tool-assisted speedrunning just because less than 5% of the runs are overly glitched and might benefit from completions which do not aim for maximal speed? Isn't complaining how TASing is all about glitch abuse and frame-shaving a bit exaggerated, given that the complaint can be targeted only on a very small subset of all published runs? Is condemning all 500 published runs really fair because some 20 of them are glitched beyond recognition?
If you want an "entertainment run" of an overly-glitched game, then why don't you go ahead and just make it? Put it on youtube and post a link here. You can even make a webpage listing all such "entertainment runs" on youtube. You can even score them if you want. What would be the problem? I just can't see it. If such a page becomes popular enough, it might even get some kind of semi-official status (such as those excellent TAS lists by alden).
If you want "entertainment runs", then stop complaining and just do it. There's nothing stopping anyone from creating them. I just don't find it rational to complain how TASing is all about "glitching and skipping" just because of some 20 published movies which do so. That's not fair for the other 400+ movies where there's basically no other rational goal than maximum speed to achieve entertainment.
I think you're setting up a bit of a straw man argument here. The complaints about glitched runs I've seen have always been in the context of a specific glitched run (two concrete examples: the S3K runs, where even the Knuckles version extensively uses zip glitches, and the Super Metroid 6% run obsoleting the 14% run). I don't think you'll find anyone arguing that TASes are generally bad because of glitch abuse. It's more that there are people out there who want there to be room on TASVideos for runs that don't abuse TASes.
And there is room. We have runs that specifically avoid certain glitches. But we also have a bit of a problem with hostile atmospheres -- people saying "Well, if you knew that doing it this way would be faster, then why didn't you use that technique?" Some of us don't see eye-to-eye with others on how TASes should be made and when it's appropriate to use a glitch.
Moreover, many of the games that people want low-glitch runs for are the ones that are incredibly well-understood by a few select people. That's why the "main" runs for those games are so glitched, of course! But it sets an incredibly high bar for newcomers to try to make low-glitch runs, or indeed any runs at all. Marzojr needed a good month's worth of coaching from Moozooh, er I mean Upthorn, to make the Tails in Sonic 1 TAS, for example. Compare that to a run for a game that's less well-understood, and the bar is much lower.
In short, I don't feel that "If you want it, then do it yourself" is a fair argument. Is there something wrong with indicating an interest in a specific run, so that the people who have the expertise to make such runs know there'd be an audience for them?
Pyrel - an open-source rewrite of the Angband roguelike game in Python.
The catch here is that when I see movies, I care less if it has to be as specific as just speed or just entertainment. I'm fine either way, but it is all about the quality of the game.
Warp, that's exactly what I have tried to say in the past, particularly with my post in the "New Category Proposal" thread. Though it could use some more analysis...
(Geeze. I re-wrote this post 3 times before posting it. I'll put up the best two iterations.)
There are three motivations a person can have (or some combination of the the three) for watching TASes. They are:
1) You want to witness theoretically how fast the game can be beaten, what the fastest known method of input is for beating the game.
2) You want to experience a game without playing it for yourself.
3) You are entertained by watching flashy and complex colors dance around the screen.
And to this, I say:
1) This is the entire premise of the site. You've come to the right place.
2) Go to YouTube, watch a Let's Play.
3) Watch a screensaver.
Sometimes you can't have #1 without having #2 and #3 also, and that's great. It's fun watching the end of a game you've just seen played, it's also fun watching the player jump around like a hyperactive ninja. But all that is the direct result of #1.
The people who wish to see the "New categories", who think that TASes are not "doing enough justice" to the games, are people who think that there are too many games where objective #1 undermines #2 and/or #3, so #1 needs to be temporarily removed from the picture so that #2 and #3 can be given a fighting chance.
For one thing, That's not what this site is for. This site is for #1. The rest is just icing on the cake.
For another thing, exactly how many movies are there on this site where #1 defeats the purpose of #2 and #3? You could probably count them on two hands. Well, except for maybe RPG runs.
And finally, if you do happen to find a game where a non-speed playaround could be good, make it. If it gets accepted, great. if it gets rejected, then it probably wasn't what this site is for. Put it on YouTube instead.
---
In reality, the fastest possible way from game start to the credits could be through cheat codes or level passwords, but there is a reason we don't allow that: we wish to see the whole game; watching a password input into the screen, one boss fight, then the credits, is a pointless waste of time.
Also, that's precisely why we have multiple categories that set different limitations on movies, because maybe we want to see the whole game played, not just glitched through, warped through, or completed minimalist. We want to see the extent of what the designers created.
The "New Category" proposal was exactly, exactly, exactly this attitude, but applied to movies in a way that doesn't make sense with the purpose of this site. People want to see the "Whole game" played, similar to the difference between a low-% and a 100% run, but the difference they are looking for are silly things like "No bunny hopping", because somehow if you play the game without bunny-hopping it feels more "proper", it feels like you're doing the game more "justice".
If the desire is great, maybe we should begin a "Tool-Assisted Let's Play" community that avoids the elitism that these people are complaining about.
I just want to add that even the really glitchy runs aren't as unrecognizably glitchy as some people are saying. For example, in the Sonic+Tails S3&K run, some people make it sound as if you're just watching walls fly by with Sonic nowhere in sight the entire time, when in fact over 80% of the movie length is totally normal (unusually fast, but otherwise normal) play.
You might say then that the actual complaint is not that there was so much glitching that nothing recognizable remained, but that so much of the game was simply skipped that people want to see too. But that's been true since the first Mario 3 TAS ("what about the other levels?") and generally it gets answered with a 100% run or some other variation, and usually whatever that variation is doesn't conflict with aiming for speed as one of the top priorities.
Derakon wrote:
But it sets an incredibly high bar for newcomers to try to make low-glitch runs, or indeed any runs at all. In short, I don't feel that "If you want it, then do it yourself" is a fair argument.
Well, I apply that argument to myself, in other words, if I want something done and it seems nobody's doing it, then I'll do it myself, when I have time. And that's probably the best thing a newcomer could do to contribute, really... I don't think it's so unreasonable to ask that of people. And it doesn't matter how high the bar is, anyone who actually tries to meet it will learn how to do it and will probably be offered help as well.
Derakon wrote:
Is there something wrong with indicating an interest in a specific run, so that the people who have the expertise to make such runs know there'd be an audience for them?
There's nothing wrong with expressing interest, but some of it so far has come across more like a condemnation of past actions than a "I'd like to see this run, how can we make it happen?" sort of posting that would've been more productive. Besides that, there's also nothing compelling the rest of us to become interested, so "if you want it, then do it yourself" really is honest and practical advice (somebody has to do it), it's not meant condescendingly.
CtrlAltDestroy wrote:
...
Exactly. Although, actually, I'd say your #1 is a bit too specific. I know this isn't the most objective terminology, but I watch TASes mainly to see games "pushed to their limits", because those limits are often surprising and fun to see, and it just happens that speed is often the best way to get that. I also think that speed is usually necessary but almost never sufficient, that is, there are already a lot of TASes that I think would be considerably worse if their authors had only aimed for the theoretically fastest time and hadn't also tried to show off in other ways.
People want to see the "Whole game" played, similar to the difference between a low-% and a 100% run, but the difference they are looking for are silly things like "No bunny hopping", because somehow if you play the game without bunny-hopping it feels more "proper", it feels like you're doing the game more "justice".
I don't think "tool-assisted playing which looks almost like regular playing" makes too much sense in the context of tool-assisted speedrunning, I also doubt it would be very entertaining in most cases.
However, as I said in the other thread, and as I have suggested in the past, I personally am not opposed to a "uses the route intended by the game developers" category. In other words, aims for maximal speed, but without skipping by abusing glitches nor level design errors. That has potential with some games which currently heavily abuse glitches.
Of course this category would have to get an official status before people will attempt such runs.
change the whole philosophy of tool-assisted speedrunning
You're right! If we wanted to accept movies which were slower for entertainment value, it wouldn't be speedrunning anymore. Except, this isn't exclusively a speedrunning site. At least that picture at the topleft leads me to believe it isn't, with the 'superplay' and all.
Also, your argument about "is it really more entertaining" is a bit useless. It might be. I find the SMB1 run quite dull. I think it might benefit from some random walking through walls/jumping up walls/mysteriously dying to a goomba that isn't even on the screen.
Of course this category would have to get an official status before people will attempt such runs.
That's the part I'm not sure about. Someone could certainly try it, and hopefully there's more that goes into judging the result than whether it fits into a category that has an existing official status. What would an official status guarantee, anyway? That we wouldn't instantly reject a submission without even watching it? But that's probably already the case. The only thing reassuring enough to motivate some people to try it would be precedence, which isn't something we can just suddenly decide. And actually, I can think of at least one example that's precedence suggesting such runs could possibly be accepted...
EDIT: What I said above doesn't exactly cover the whole "playaround run" idea, only the "low glitch" idea. But I suspect those would be fine as well, as they already are accepted on a case-by-case basis for fighting games and certain other games.
I'd really like to see some more entertainment focused concepts for runs.
I think multigame runs are a nice idea, though I miserably failed to finish the one I started in the past and it doesn't seem like I'll ever have the time to do so. But I think they are nice examples of when entertainment should be prioritized over speed. Having multiple characters move in unison isn't necessarily the fastest option, but it just looks so much better. Also with multiple games, finding the ultimately fastest input is quite problematic, so to me aiming for speed as a primary goal makes less sense in those. The big problems with those runs are the game choice, choice of game quantity and the music.
There's a glitchfest run on this site, showing off as many glitches as possible. Although it's quite a nice idea as well, I ended up fast forwarding through a lot of it. Making those runs not finish the game would feel lame, but doing so inevitably makes them filled with boring glitchless sections.
I'd like to see other creative ideas for runs. Some "drunken master" like play could maybe be interesting where the game is finished in totally obscure and surprising ways. The game would have to provide a high degree of freedom to the player and the player would have to have loads of knowledge about it though.
Maybe a run where every action has to happen so it fits the music? This has been brought up as an idea for a certain game featuring Michael Jackson before.
I honestly think that most runs using such concepts would be easily accepted on this site if they were executed well enough. Whether they are more entertaining than the fastest completion would depend on the authors, the game and the viewer.
I just want to add that even the really glitchy runs aren't as unrecognizably glitchy as some people are saying. For example, in the Sonic+Tails S3&K run, some people make it sound as if you're just watching walls fly by with Sonic nowhere in sight the entire time, when in fact over 80% of the movie length is totally normal (unusually fast, but otherwise normal) play.
Its funny, one person mentions they want to see the original 'glitchless' run, but the torrent is down, and all the sudden the entire forum is fixated on this run being 'far too different from a non-glitch run' and too much of a 'speed for entertainment trade-off', and made it into the site's whipping boy. Yet, for each improvement, I don't remember a single person saying 'man, this is less entertaining.' (I'm too lazy to bother to check, but I'm sure the majority were far more positive than the current discussion would have you believe.
Translation to all who did the previous:
Baaa, Baa baa baa, baaaa, baaaaaaah, baaaaah.
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.
I'd like to see other creative ideas for runs. Some "drunken master" like play could maybe be interesting where the game is finished in totally obscure and surprising ways. The game would have to provide a high degree of freedom to the player and the player would have to have loads of knowledge about it though.
This is precisely what I was talking about in my original post. It sounds all well and good in theory, but honestly speaking, how many of the currently-published runs would benefit from "free play"?
Note that what you are describing is something which could entertain for a minute or so. It would be foolish to try to make an entire 20-minute run which completes the game and just fools around such a concept. And there are only so many "funny tricks" you can pull off in one game. If you repeat it too much, it quickly becomes boring, especially because it just wastes time rather than completing the game sooner, making the video longer than it could be. (In other words, rather than a 20-minute speed completion you get 30 minutes of fooling around; is that really going to be entertaining?)
Your idea might work for some very short games, those which can be completed in less than 5 minutes, and which lend themselves to such "free play". However, the average length of the published videos is probably somewhere in the 20 minutes. Making them longer is usually only going to make them more boring to watch. The first 5 minutes might be funny, but it gets old very fast. There isn't that much variation in games. I don't think "free playing" is a panacea which will suddenly make long videos more entertaining, if you are bored of watching them.
As I said in my original post, if you want such a "free play" run, then make one, put it on youtube or somewhere, and post links. It's one thing to talk about it, and another to actually do something about it. Maybe if you succeed, it will catch on.
Joined: 10/27/2004
Posts: 1978
Location: Making an escape
I remember back in my early days of tool-assistance seeing a Super Mario video called "Mario God Playing" or something along those lines, where the creator demonstrated a number of bugs in the Mario engine. It was a pretty fun watch... up until the 50th wall jump.
Anyone know what I'm talking about? It sounds pertinent.
A hundred years from now, they will gaze upon my work and marvel at my skills but never know my name. And that will be good enough for me.
how many of the currently-published runs would benefit from "free play"?
Not many if any. Most of the existing ones focus on speed and adding in a bit of free play would make it half-assed. Those would have to be independent runs.
Warp wrote:
Note that what you are describing is something which could entertain for a minute or so. It would be foolish to try to make an entire 20-minute run which completes the game and just fools around such a concept.
That convinced me. I noted it, it truly was foolish of me to suggest such a thing. Really though, just because it wouldn't entertain you for more than a minute doesn't mean everybody else woud feel the same way.
Warp wrote:
And there are only so many "funny tricks" you can pull off in one game.
Since you took the "drunken master" like concept thing as an example, I'll say that there are games where the amount of funny tricks is high enough. For example, I bet that coming up with 70 hilarious and surprising strategies for getting a star is possible in SM64. Such a run would be hard to do and require lots of creative planning though.
Warp wrote:
If you repeat it too much, it quickly becomes boring,
Yep, that would be bad execution or bad game choice.
Warp wrote:
especially because it just wastes time rather than completing the game sooner, making the video longer than it could be.
This is basically saying it's boring, especially because it's not fastest. I don't get the causal relation here.
Warp wrote:
(In other words, rather than a 20-minute speed completion you get 30 minutes of fooling around; is that really going to be entertaining?)
This is saying it'd be boring because it's longer, I also don't get that argument. Whether it's really going to be entertaining depends on the effort the author puts into the movie.
Warp wrote:
Your idea might work for some very short games, those which can be completed in less than 5 minutes, and which lend themselves to such "free play".
Of course it isn't going to work for any game. Note that finishing as quickly as possible also doesn't.
Warp wrote:
However, the average length of the published videos is probably somewhere in the 20 minutes. Making them longer is usually only going to make them more boring to watch.
I'm starting to think what you're talking about is a run that does everything a normal speedrun would do, except for adding derails. That's not what I meant, I was talking about totally different and surprising routes.
Note how I said "the game is finished in totally obscure and surprising ways" and not "the game is finished just like normal with a bit of additional (time wasting) fooling around squeezed in".
Warp wrote:
The first 5 minutes might be funny, but it gets old very fast.
You seem to assume the run would be full of repetition. I don't see why it has to be.
Warp wrote:
There isn't that much variation in games. I don't think "free playing" is a panacea which will suddenly make long videos more entertaining, if you are bored of watching them.
I also don't. Your initial post was about how squeezing in additional entertainment into already existing runs wouldn't be going to make them more entertaining in the end. I agree with that. With my post I wasn't expressing disagreement about that. I was talking about entirely different concepts because I thought bringing them up would fit the topic title, not to start an argument.
Warp wrote:
As I said in my original post, if you want such a "free play" run, then make one, put it on youtube or somewhere, and post links.
Why not put it on this site if it's good?
Warp wrote:
It's one thing to talk about it, and another to actually do something about it. Maybe if you succeed, it will catch on.
I know. Unfortunately I don't feel skilled enough in any game to do such a run on my own. Taking the time to get skilled enough also wouldn't be worth it for me.
You might say then that the actual complaint is not that there was so much glitching that nothing recognizable remained, but that so much of the game was simply skipped that people want to see too. But that's been true since the first Mario 3 TAS ("what about the other levels?") and generally it gets answered with a 100% run or some other variation, and usually whatever that variation is doesn't conflict with aiming for speed as one of the top priorities.
I think this nails the issue. So what about when a 100% run (or other variant) doesn't answer this problem?
especially because it just wastes time rather than completing the game sooner, making the video longer than it could be.
This is basically saying it's boring, especially because it's not fastest. I don't get the causal relation here.
What I'm saying is that I'm not at all convinced that making a long run (20 minutes or more) even longer is going to make the movie more entertaining. I fear that in most cases it may be fun to watch for the first 5-10 minutes, but after that it will start feeling just like artificial dragging, trying too hard to be "funny" when there isn't really any novelty in it anylonger.
The idea might work on a short run (5 minutes max, I'd say), but not in the average length ones, and especially not the really long ones (over half hour).
In a regular tool-assisted speedrun at least there is a clear goal, and the variety comes from the game itself. Seeing the game beaten superhumanly fast is the source of the entertainment, even in very long runs.
What would you dislike about the SM64 run I gave as an example? It wouldn't repeat any basic strategy and not just use BLJs, but surprise you anew with every collected star. "I didn't think that was possible!", "Ah, that's why he did that, it was to set up this!", "Wow, I admit that looked kind of cool!" and so forth would be reactions that hypothetical movie commonly provoked.
I get your general argument and agree, but I don't see how it affects my proposal. You were quoting it which led me to think you'd think it would.
1) You want to witness theoretically how fast the game can be beaten, what the fastest known method of input is for beating the game.
[...]
1) This is the entire premise of the site. You've come to the right place.
No. It is not. That's why TAS is Tool Assisted Superplay, not Speedrun, as it used to be.
Examples? Fighting movies. Sport movies. Gradius. Oh, you hate these movies? Super Mario Bros 3's scrolling sections. they aren't about speed,they're about entertainment. If Morimoto's movie were just about speed, no one would get impressed with TASes.
"Oh, he's fast, but I can do that, with training. Wait, what is he doing? How did he do that? Wow, that's impr- wait, HOW he's getting all these lives?"
That's not "icing the cake", this is the cake's flavor.
CtrlAltDestroy wrote:
3) You are entertained by watching flashy and complex colors dance around the screen.
3) Watch a screensaver.
What? Why would anyone watch a TAS for "flashy and complex colors"? Do you hate Barbie games THAT much?
Oh, by the way, this is exactly how I would describe the pokemon glitched movies.
CtrlAltDestroy wrote:
The people who wish to see the "New categories", who think that TASes are not "doing enough justice" to the games, are people who think that there are too many games where objective #1 undermines #2 and/or #3, so #1 needs to be temporarily removed from the picture so that #2 and #3 can be given a fighting chance.
Generalizing is bad. It's not about justice, is about entertainment. Think about "small only" Mario run. Is it about #2 or #3?
CtrlAltDestroy wrote:
The "New Category" proposal was exactly, exactly, exactly this attitude, but applied to movies in a way that doesn't make sense with the purpose of this site.
The problem is, withc criteria will be used to segregate the movies to the "new category"? And what would be the differences? What about the already published ones?
nitsuja wrote:
And it doesn't matter how high the bar is, anyone who actually tries to meet it will learn how to do it and will probably be offered help as well.
Thats a good way to see it. But they need help. It's hard to get used to the TASing tools, and the newcomers need some criticism.
LagDotCom wrote:
I find the SMB1 run quite dull. I think it might benefit from some random walking through walls/jumping up walls/mysteriously dying to a goomba that isn't even on the screen.
That's part of the human nature. We don't have to agree with everything, but we need a consensus.
If someone did a "glitchfest" of Super Mario Bros 1, I don't really know if I would like it. I'd have to see it.
But, right now, who is going to try it, just to see his job getting rejected by site politics?
nitsuja wrote:
And it doesn't matter how high the bar is, anyone who actually tries to meet it will learn how to do it and will probably be offered help as well.
Thats a good way to see it. But they need help. It's hard to get used to the TASing tools, and the newcomers need some criticism.
Kuwaga wrote:
I honestly think that most runs using such concepts would be easily accepted on this site if they were executed well enough. Whether they are more entertaining than the fastest completion would depend on the authors, the game and the viewer.
Or, at least, that's the point of all this. Except it depend of the game, the authors and the viewer, but in a different way.
Take, for example, Phil's Combatribes movie. I really hope this doesn't attract any drama.This movie was published here just because he could, no one actually voted on it.
About the games, some genres are negectled. See fighting games. Some people vote "no" just for disling the genre itself, without even watching the movie. And how many full-game racing games we have, besides Mario Kart and clones? And yet, we have really really long RPGs runs, and no one complains about it.
And the viewers... Well, search for "Ocarina of Time" rejected movies, but with oh so many votes.
Ferret Warlord wrote:
I remember back in my early days of tool-assistance seeing a Super Mario video called "Mario God Playing" or something along those lines, where the creator demonstrated a number of bugs in the Mario engine. It was a pretty fun watch... up until the 50th wall jump.
Well, that's the challenge about making a entertainment movie, right? Specially if you're "god". Quoting Kuraga, "that would be bad execution or bad game choice". It is already on the rules.
Kuwaga wrote:
Warp wrote:
how many of the currently-published runs would benefit from "free play"?
Not many if any. Most of the existing ones focus on speed and adding in a bit of free play would make it half-assed. Those would have to be independent runs.
And that's the gigantic problem this new "category" idea will start. How someone will judge this?
Kuwaga wrote:
Warp wrote:
(In other words, rather than a 20-minute speed completion you get 30 minutes of fooling around; is that really going to be entertaining?)
This is saying it'd be boring because it's longer, I also don't get that argument. Whether it's really going to be entertaining depends on the effort the author puts into the movie.
Exactly. I don't see anyone complaining about the Final Fantasy VI run, which if FOUR HOURS long, and it's full of Vanish/Doom and 777.
Warp wrote:
What I'm saying is that I'm not at all convinced that making a long run (20 minutes or more) even longer is going to make the movie more entertaining. I fear that in most cases it may be fun to watch for the first 5-10 minutes, but after that it will start feeling just like artificial dragging, trying too hard to be "funny" when there isn't really any novelty in it anylonger.
My first language is not English, so please excuse myself if I write something wrong. I'll do my best do write as cleary as I can, so cope with me here =)
(ﾉಥ益ಥ）ﾉ
Joined: 11/18/2006
Posts: 2426
Location: Back where I belong
OmegaWatcher wrote:
Generalizing is bad.
Followed closely by....
OmegaWatcher wrote:
If someone did a "glitchfest" of Super Mario Bros 1, I don't really know if I would like it. I'd have to see it.
But, right now, who is going to try it, just to see his job getting rejected by site politics?
Which is followed closely by....
OmegaWatcher wrote:
If someone did a "glitchfest" of Super Mario Bros 1, I don't really know if I would like it. I'd have to see it.
But, right now, who is going to try it, just to see his job getting rejected by site politics?
Which is followed closely by....
OmegaWatcher wrote:
Your generalizing is causing contradictions in your points.
Well, taking lines out of context is bad too.
Try this:
OmegaWatcher wrote:
If someone did a "glitchfest" of Super Mario Bros 1, I don't really know if I would like it. I'd have to see it.
But, right now, who is going to try it, just to see his job getting rejected by site politics?
How many threads are being derailed by speed vs. entertainment right now? How many criticism adelikat got for his New SMB run being published? What about all those gruefood resurrections? And that forsaken low% Super Metroid TAS? Not to mention trolls.
Please, mmbossman. I can see you're not taking this "criticism wave" very well. Relax, calm down, no one's here to harm or hurt you. I believe most people discussing these problems just want TASVideos growing stronger and better. Don't be bitter about it.
My first language is not English, so please excuse myself if I write something wrong. I'll do my best do write as cleary as I can, so cope with me here =)
(ﾉಥ益ಥ）ﾉ
Joined: 11/18/2006
Posts: 2426
Location: Back where I belong
OmegaWatcher wrote:
Don't be bitter about it.
I'm not. I simply don't people using over-exaggerations and generalizations to try and predict my (or other admin's) actions to events that haven't happened yet. So please stop being so melodramatic about things.
