Since several people are creating posts suggesting a name change, then let me also create a post about an alternative:
Changing the conceptual name of these videos is a huge job (we have this "timeattack" -> "TAS" transition as a perfect example) and shouldn't be done lightly.
What people object against is that not *all* videos aim for speed. (Which means "1 video does not aim for speed".)
Well, since all the other 315 videos do have speed as a goal, the solution to this "problem" is simple: Create a new "non-speed" category (or whatever you like to name it) and put that one video in it.
We already have at least one special category for videos which do not comply to all the rules of the site: The "concept demos" category. I see no problem in adding a category for the few videos which do not aim at speed at all.
This will take probably like 2 minutes and the Holy Accuracy of the site will then be restored.
You don't seem to understand, no one really cares. My topic was completely humorous in nature and wasn't about changing the name of anything in the least. It was about setting the IRC chat channel topic to something nonsensical. The petition to change tasvideos back to nesvideos was made because people didn't like the SOUND of it, not because they gave a rat's butt what it meant. The possible solution to the so-called TAS problem was posted by a "known dissident" (like yourself) who likes to talk on end about things that don't matter, aren't going to change, and no one cares about. You are more annoying than Shining Shinryuu. At least when he posted, we all got to wonder what ridiculous thing he'd say next. You just drone on and on about the SAME THING ... and no one cares about it! I don't even care in the least about it. I care about you filling up the forums with argumentative garbage! Get off my lawn! Go make a TAS! (Make it speedy!) Go have a conversation about something fun! Talk to someone without patronizing them!
At least some people don't seem to share your indifference given that they so adamantly respond to all my posts fighting again and again against my arguments.
Comparing me to that shinryuu is a bit unfair. Sure, I get easily trolled, I can't help it, but I try not to troll myself (as he seemed so eager to do) and try to keep things civilized.
What people object against is that not *all* videos aim for speed. (Which means "1 video does not aim for speed".)
Well, since all the other 315 videos do have speed as a goal, the solution to this "problem" is simple: Create a new "non-speed" category (or whatever you like to name it) and put that one video in it.
Dude. You're failing to understand something.
Yes, just about all of the videos on this site have speed as a goal.
However, on all of those videos, there is another goal, which is to be entertaining.
In fact, the entertainment goal takes priority over the speed goal. This is the reason we don't just have bots make all the runs. The bot would never do tricks during wait periods, or waste six frames to do something in a much more fun way.
It is rare that the goals of entertainment and speed are at odds with each other, but when they are, (for instance, someone submits a faster played, but less interesting run), entertainment prevails over speed.
The fact that interesting runs will sometimes get obsoleted by faster, equally interesting runs does NOT prove that speed is more highly valued. Especially when there are multiple (as in more than one) cases where a fast, but boring movie has been obsoleted by a slower one.
If you still don't understand, please, just shut up. You're the only person on this site who doesn't get it, and it's quite aggravating for the rest of us to read your constant whining tripe complaining of an inaccuracy which doesn't exist.
(Apologies if that was overly harsh -- I can get a bit mean when I go without sleep)
PS: This would have come earlier, and probably phrased a bit nicer, too, but I actually had to reread the threads to realize that all of that complaining was from a single voice.
How fleeting are all human passions compared with the massive continuity of ducks.
<Upthorn> I don't understand xebra's comment there.
<Bladegash> tip me over and pour me out
<Upthorn> no, I know the song.
<Upthorn> I don't get the relevance.
<Bladegash> the line before the one I posted
<Upthorn> Yes, I know the song, and I know that xebra's comment is from the song.
<Upthorn> I don't understand how it was relevant to any prior discussion in that thread.
<xebra> In the song it's a teapot.
<xebra> But I'm not so brash as to claim to be that.
<Upthorn> ...
<Upthorn> That fails as an explanation.
The fact that interesting runs will sometimes get obsoleted by faster, equally interesting runs does NOT prove that speed is more highly valued. Especially when there are multiple (as in more than one) cases where a fast, but boring movie has been obsoleted by a slower one.
Although this statement is accurate, it's also very misleading. As far as I can tell, a faster movie has only been obsoleted by a slower movie on four occasions:
Excitebike:
A "one track" movie was obsoleted by an "all tracks" movie.
Solomon's Key:
An "any ending" movie was obsoleted by a "best ending" movie.
Snake Rattle, 'n Roll:
A "warpless" run obsoleted two runs, both the existing "warpless" and "uses warps" run. This makes sense, considering the previous author stated in his comments that most of the interesting levels had been skipped.
Battletoads:
A two-player "warpless" run obsoleted a two-player "uses warps" run. At the time, there was already a one-player "uses warps" run that was 2 minutes faster than the two-player.
Here's the important part: never has a movie been obsoleted by a slower movie with the exact same goals. Entertainment is valued, certainly. It is my personal opinion that much of the entertainment that comes from watching a TAS is to see the creative solutions the author used to increase speed, and also from precision of movement.
Entertainment is valued, certainly. It is my personal opinion that much of the entertainment that comes from watching a TAS is to see the creative solutions the author used to increase speed, and also from precision of movement.
That's another point I forgot to mention. It's what I was trying to explain when I said that the goal of entertainment and the goal of speed are rarely at odds with each other.
How fleeting are all human passions compared with the massive continuity of ducks.
This is the reason we don't just have bots make all the runs.
Irrelevant to the topic in question, but that is false.
The reason why bots are not used to create (complete) runs is because it's impossible, not because the run would be "boring".
Well, ok, it's not impossible to create a bot which *completes* the game, but it's impossible to create a bot which completes it in optimal time. This is because the number of possible key sequences grows exponentially with the number of frames the run takes. An exhaustive search of even a short game would require more memory than all the computers in the world have combined. A *lot* more.
Why do you think that eg. the best chess programs in the world read only about 10-12 moves ahead? You can think of each possible move as one frame in the TAS video. It's just impossible to make a bot which tests all possible combinations of more than about 50 frames. Yet even the shortest movie published so far has 1802 frames. That's utterly out of reach of an exhaustive search.
Of course it would be possible to create a heuristical bot which tries to optimize the run. However, besides being a really difficult thing to create, the result would still probably not be perfect (most probably it would be quite far from perfect) and thus not interesting.
If such a bot would be possible, rest assured that it would have already been done. However, it isn't. (The best that has been created so far is a bot which optimizes a dozen of frames in the megaman1 run. Anything longer than that would just be impractical. Much longer and it becomes impossible.)
We already have at least one special category for videos which do not comply to all the rules of the site: The "concept demos" category.
Concept demos contains:
- 1 track/1 level demonstrations, sometimes used to spark interest in a game or for competition purposes (which is still within all of the rules)
- Hacked games, which (again, those 'rules' these don't comply with) the rules clearly state can be used provided they're approved for playing by Lord Bisqwit. Still perfectly within the rules.
They just fall into another category of runs (incomplete/hacks), but they don't fall out of the rules.
(And, taking this in context, where does it say in the rules that you must aim for speed? That's what I'm gathering, since you seem to imply aiming for entertainment is outside the rules of this site...)
(on that note, ten-day reply, but I've been out of town and it's only halfway down the page)
What people object against is that not *all* videos aim for speed. (Which means "1 video does not aim for speed".)
Well, since all the other 315 videos do have speed as a goal, the solution to this "problem" is simple: Create a new "non-speed" category (or whatever you like to name it) and put that one video in it.
We already have at least one special category for videos which do not comply to all the rules of the site: The "concept demos" category. I see no problem in adding a category for the few videos which do not aim at speed at all.
You imply that this (entertainment) would be another category for videos which don't comply with all rules of the site.
Emphasis mine.
You are reading more to it than there is. I was contrasting "speed" vs. "non-speed", not "speed" vs. "entertainment". I was suggesting a new category for the very few videos where speed is not a goal.
You talk as if aiming for speed would not be aiming at entertainment. I find this view rather puzzling and incomprehensible.
