I am very pleased working with other the time attack players. We don't get angered if someone beats our record, it's not a matter of pride here; we're just trying to get it perfect. In speed runs the attention is placed on who is more skillful and the credit is centered on the player. We credit the movies, and not as much the author in time attacks since each new version almost always builds directly on previous ones. So in the end, if we finally reach perfection, it is the product of many player's hard work and deliberate collaboration (ex. smb2, zelda), and not secrecy. I believe this is what causes the tension between speed run and time attack players. We place the emphasis on different things: skill vs. theoretical perfection. If we were advertising skill in time attacks, then we would be cheating, but many people fail to see that this is not why we make these movies. Moreover, it would be equally incorrect of us to insult speed runs by saying they're imperfect. We can't agree because we're aiming for different goals, and until everyone realizes that, the war between time attack and speed run players will never end.
I am a gamer and i think most of the movies i ve seen could be completed without emulators. I know because i have played since i was a child. I think your movies are excellent and make people strive for perfection even if they don t know what methods are used. The only movie that i didn t like was morimoto's speed upgrade gradius because you could tell it was fake and it wasn t fun to watch.
I also have a question
I like balloon fight and the older games like clu clu land and donkey kong 3 a lot and I wonder if you would you be interested in movies of thoose older hard games? Maybe fastest time to get the score-counter reset.
Continue your good work.
I like balloon fight and the older games like clu clu land and donkey kong 3 a lot and I wonder if you would you be interested in movies of thoose older hard games?
Balloon Fight: It's extremely fun game to play, but I doubt it's a good game for timeattacks because all the effort may only show in the clock - not as an observable "awesome" sensation.
Clu Clu Land: I recall you can't control the movements very precisely in this game. If I'm right, it's not suitable for timeattacks.
Donkey Kong 3: Might be too simple game... not sure.
Ok
At least I came up with a game that is awsome to play and to watch even though it scrolls by itself.
It is Gradius 2. Admit that it is a very nice game and that it would be nice to have a movie from it.
My favorite movie so far is Castlevania 3 and I wonder which one you think is the best?
No no no THE Gradius 2 not Life force salamander.
Haven t you tried Gradius 2 then you should.
And if you play it a little you will see that the graphics and the music surpass almost all nesgames.
please answer which game movie you like most
Since this thread is straying a little bit off topic :), I will make a (final?) personal statement.
I have deep respect for speed runners skills, and although I like watching a good time attack, a well performed speed run just radiates so much confidence and skill that you just wonder "how the hell did he do that" repeatedly through the run.
Great work!
What I do not respect though is shitty attitude and spreading misinformation.
Thanks.
Seems so (because I have its soundtrack). I don't know that game then.
Jumpman wrote:
please answer which game movie you like most
Out of the topic of this thread. Please don't reply to that question :)
I'm not going to create a new one either because I don't want to be one asking that question :)
"I think I may be one of the few on these boards who don't think video games are life."
Not finishing your homework and lying in bed thinking about optimal Zelda paths... Soon you'll be one of us ;)
Hahahahaaha. Touche.
I'll be the first one to admit I'm a dork. It's not a bad thing. Like, um, look at Weezer... What I meant was, it seems to me that more people who are involved with dorky things, like video games, or Linux, or stuff like that, tend to be antisocial. I'm not really sure why.
I'm sorry if I came off hostile in my first post. It wasn't my intention. And I actually don't think that was the intention of you, or feitclub either. These things kinda put a spin on themselves. Generally, I think we agree on these things. Perhaps word choice and other things are missinterpretted.
Both sides understand the work, skill, and effort of the other side. Also, it should be noted, though, that one person doesn't represent the bunch. That is to say, there will always be a troublemaker, and we shouldn't let them split us into factions like this.
I was scared when I first came here and saw how many posts had been made in a single day. I thought that I might be in big trouble. :)
First, I'm not sure what went wrong with feitclub and I. I originally felt like all of his posts had an agitated and negative tone directed at me so I responded accordingly. I probably misinterpreted. I think he also misinterpreted most of my comments which did aggravate me. Oh well. If you do come back and read this feitclub, I'm sorry for the way things went.
feitclub wrote:
Cheating, by definition, involves deception.
Not necessarily. You can cheat without deceiving. Cheating is often accomplished by deceiving, but unfairness is actually the core of cheating. Anything a person does that violates the rules of their activity is cheating even if they don't hide it.
feitclub wrote:
And if you enjoy time attacks but still describe us as "cheaters," then you are, as Bisqwit put it, "ignorant."
I don't think ignorance is implied at all here. Perhaps hypocrisy, but not ignorance. I have watched some yes, but it was for knowledge, not enjoyment. I wanted to see if there were any tricks I was missing.
Bisqwit wrote:
Teaching your brain how to play a game extraordinarily well is just waste of time when you can teach a computer that much faster with better results :)
This is a great quote because it demonstrates just how different my motives are from Bisqwit's. If I understand this, Bisqwit's only desire is to produce perfect play. For him, the result is everything. He has stated this before as have many other time attackers.
My goal is also to produce a perfect play, but I require it to be an unenhanced, human performance. This is the way the games were designed to be played, and it is the way I enjoy playing them. Results are important, but only if I achieve them naturally. Otherwise, my achievement means nothing to me and is a waste of time. Deviance is right in that I'm focused on my own performance as a player.
BTW, speed running is a lot more than just reflexes. Quick thinking is a must to minimize consequences of mistakes, and good strategy/analysis is no less necessary than it is in a time attack. Sometimes I choose not to do things in the optimal way because the sub-optimal way is easier and takes less effort to learn. It's a cost/benefit analysis. Speed running takes both thinking and reflexes. That's why it's so hard!
Deviance wrote:
We can't agree because we're aiming for different goals, and until everyone realizes that, the war between time attack and speed run players will never end.
I agree although I think "motive" better describes our difference since many of our goals are the same. If you strip out our motives and look purely at the actions we make, the only difference between what we do and what you do is the use of emulator features. Playing the game perfectly is a goal we have in common. Making a video of this play is a goal we have in common. Motive is where the difference lies. My primary motive as a speed runner is to play the game as well as I can. Your primary motive as a time attacker is to make the best video that you can. It's a fine line, but it is a line nonetheless. We have basically the same end goal, but since our motives are different, our rules for reaching our goal is different. Therein lies the source of the problem.
Anyway, I'm spending way too much time with these posts so I better give it a rest. I wanted to respond to Ramzi's and cat's most recent posts, but I'll just sum up by saying that your posts were nicely stated, and I agree with you both.
I think motive and goal can be conflating at times, and although the goals may seem the same, it is more the methods of reaching them that has spurred such debate. Whether a game was beaten in X number of minutes through a time attack or a speed run shouldn't matter since the end product is the same. Many forget time attacks are the product of human ingenuity; we are in fact playing the game, and are not simply programming keystrokes. Emulators have given us the advantage to produce in a matter of hours what could possibly take an average player a lifetime to accomplish. Why not use the technology to accomplish more than was possible before? Personal pride, hero worship, and the craving for the loosely defined "authentic play" have become nothing but barriers. Both sides will eventually agree on something, but it will take time since the time attack concept has just very recently reached this level of popularity.
The only movie that i didn t like was morimoto's speed upgrade gradius because you could tell it was fake and it wasn t fun to watch.
I have never understood (and probably never will) this obsession in using the term "fake" in this context.
If Morimoto had claimed something like "this is a genuine play which I have been practicing for years and what you see is exactly how I played it in real-time" then you can certainly call it a "fake" because that would be what it is: Morimoto would be lying through his teeth and the video he is showing you is not what he claims it to be.
However, I don't think Morimoto has ever said or even implied that (well, who knows, perhaps he actually has, but I find that unlikely).
If you say, however, "look at how this game can be played when a computer is told how to play with almost superhuman reflexes" then there's absolutely nothing "fake" in the video. It's showing you exactly what is promised: An almost perfect, almost superhuman play, which is theoretically possible with a real NES with the real game. The video is certainly genuine.
This is a language problem.
People need a term that explains precisely how the movies are done.
We already have the term "timeattack", but it's not a term that tells anyone that the movie has been made with emulator using undo and slow motion.
Because they don't have that term, they say it's "fake" because it's something else than they would expect when watching the movie - a recording of someone playing the game by normal means.
But I don t find that movie amusing that s what i said. I like movies that are fun to watch and if you think it s fun to watch a guy picking up speed upgrades then you are free to do so.
And if you think someone can play like that it s your opinion. I have played gradius a lot and you cannot survive with that many speed upgrades on the nes because of the digital controller. It would be possible if you had an analog stick but no that movie is impossible to perform on an actual nes. I can make a movie to try if you want hehe.
You can observe and it can be proven that using an emulator doesn't remove the digitalness.
Indeed nobody could play like that - it's too difficult.
But the fun is that emulator movies are not limited to skill.
I never said an emu removes digitalness.
But if you tap down just a little with that many speed upgrades your ship moves a lot more than in a slowed emu-version.
This is a language problem.
People need a term that explains precisely how the movies are done.
We already have the term "timeattack", but it's not a term that tells anyone that the movie has been made with emulator using undo and slow motion.
Because they don't have that term, they say it's "fake" because it's something else than they would expect when watching the movie - a recording of someone playing the game by normal means.
The Doom speed-running community uses the term TASdemo (Tool-Assisted Speed demo) for "fake/timeattack" runs of Doom. Same goes for the Quake speedrunning community.
To begin with I myself didn't know the difference between timeattacks and speedruns. At first I thought it was the same thing, only some ppl called it timeattacks and others called it speedruns. =/
Joined: 5/1/2004
Posts: 4096
Location: Rio, Brazil
There is no such thing as "cheating" in games. I feel you should be able to use any option in a game or system.
Cowardly as it is, if you feel the need to neuter the games you play, perhaps if you feel threatened by them, its fine by me. I'm astonished though, that you people are not ashamed to publicly display your immasculated, time-a-hack vidoes.
I personally love making videos to record my accomplishments. Perhaps I'm brave, but I only record my play on actual consoles with my DVD recorder. I prefer adult games such as Golden Eye 64 and Halo over games that were designed for children in the 1980's. When doing this I turn up difficulty levels to give the computer the advange. My videos capture a fearless master overcoming incredible odds.
Using features many people consider "cheating," such as "slow down" and "resave," pulls the teeth out of the game's jaws.
I love the discussions in these forums. I look forward writing more!
-PointPlayer
feitclub wrote:
"sdkess7," I enjoy time attacks. I enjoy making them, and I enjoy watching them. I also enjoy watching "unenhanced," for lack of a better term, speed runs like those Metroid movies.
But I don't enjoy the idea that time attacks are cheating. Cheating only has negative connotations:
(noun): Someone who leads you to believe something that is not true
(noun): The act of swindling by some fraudulent scheme
(noun): A deception for profit to yourself
(verb): Deprive somebody of something by deceit
(verb): Defeat someone in an expectation through trickery or deceit
(verb): Engage in deceitful behavior; practice trickery or fraud
If you came here to defend yourself from comments that offended you, fine. But you took time out to tell us that we're viewed as "cheaters" by "serious gamers." And the comparison between yourself and a professional athlete is illogical. Derek Jeter is serious about baseball because he is paid $18 million a year to play it. I know professional video gamers exist, but they're not playing NES. They're competing in international tournaments, earning a living.
I prefer adult games such as Golden Eye 64 and Halo over games that were designed for children in the 1980's.
roflmao
pointPlayer wrote:
When doing this I turn up difficulty levels to give the computer the advange. My videos capture a fearless master overcoming incredible odds.
The A.I never has the advantage because it is exactly what the name says, "Artificial Intelligence". The game cannot think for itself, which is the reason why timeattacks can be mimicked
pointPlayer wrote:
Using features many people consider "cheating," such as "slow down" and "resave," pulls the teeth out of the game's jaws.
Well, If that is what you believe then I cannot say anything to change your mind. The videos are made to be cool, not to show off superhuman skills.
