Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Former player
Joined: 8/1/2004
Posts: 2687
Location: Seattle, WA
FractalFusion wrote:
I never heard of that before. The version 1.0 I have didn't do it yet.
Speaking of beating the game without dash boots, I was thinking of making a speedwalk of the fortress stages using a hacked passcode.
Couldn't you just, you know, not dash? It's not that hard to avoid the dash button, and if you're using an emulator you can ensure that you don't ever double tap to dash.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Former player
Joined: 8/1/2004
Posts: 2687
Location: Seattle, WA
Wouter Jansen wrote:
so funny, I bet you don't even know the game or played it.
the explanation to why zurreco missed the point was that the lookdown only lessens the boring parts, yet he calls it boring. that's quite redundant, to call something boring when it was boring to begin with, whichever method you use to strafe a long stretch etc, it's still boring.
For starters, assuming only makes you look like a huge cunt.
I don't understand your logic of 'I will make things less boring by staring at the ground.' It will be boring either way. The only difference is that, rather than staring at bland textures on the ground, you can see a slightly more entertaining image. Example: while the Runway isn't the most beautiful landscape in the game, it's still better looking than the surface of it. I would rather see the somewhat detailed level makeup than I would watching asphalt and snow go by. To me (and this is my opinion here), ground looking is more boring than losing a few frames to lag.
I am fully willing to accept that whoever runs this is willin to put speed ahead of time by groundlooking, but I think it is really disrespectful to just shrug off peoples' beliefs that staring at the ground is more boring than anything else. On top of being dismissive, you go to the extent of calling them noobs or saying that they've probably never played the game. NEWSFLASH: Just because someone isn't gungho about the completion time does not mean that they don't know anything about the game.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Former player
Joined: 8/1/2004
Posts: 2687
Location: Seattle, WA
Wouter Jansen wrote:
zurreco totally misses the point. the tas won't lose any entertainment from it as long as your brain just views it the way we do.
I actually think you're missing the point here. This whole debate came up with backwalking in OoT: it saves time, but many many people find it boring. It's not that people need to see where you're going because they don't know what is going on, it's just that some people would rather watch 2 minutes of stuff happening, rather than 1:59.30 of floors flying by their faces.
From a time perspective, ground look all you want.
From an entertainment perspective, I personally would rather see something happening all the time, rather than loads of ground textures flying by.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Former player
Joined: 8/1/2004
Posts: 2687
Location: Seattle, WA
Well, it was passed off as a real time play by some super-reflexative autistic 6 year old. I think it is fake in the sense that it is not what it was claimed to be.
What does fake mean, if not "not what it was claimed to be?" You worded it oddly by saying "it was not what I thought it would be," because everyone thought it would be a superplay by an autistic 6 year old, rather than a tool assisted play. Care to elaborate?
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Former player
Joined: 8/1/2004
Posts: 2687
Location: Seattle, WA
It looks like a lot of users can see right through this guy's lies from the get go, so not all is lost.
Still, lying about the nature of a movie to get youtube views is retarded.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Former player
Joined: 8/1/2004
Posts: 2687
Location: Seattle, WA
Spider-Waffle wrote:
Basically how much look down you'd use in a TAS would be a function of how much you want to appease noobs and how much you want to get the best time possible.
Yes, except this site is about entertainment, not just getting a time. I don't want to rile this debate up again, but it's really arrogant to say "giving up a few frames in order to make the movie more interesting is for noobs." As said earlier, you don't even lose frames in certain places by not looking down.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Former player
Joined: 8/1/2004
Posts: 2687
Location: Seattle, WA
This movie was the source of many chuckles. The combos were fairly impressive, too. Yes vote. My only problem is that you took damage for no reason.
BABY ON THE SHOULDER!
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Former player
Joined: 8/1/2004
Posts: 2687
Location: Seattle, WA
OgreSlayeR is gonna overreact his foot in to your mandibular joint if you don't listen up.
Seriously though. Anyone posting below me that doesn't directly talk about this submission and only this submisison earns the Official Seal of Disapproval.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Former player
Joined: 8/1/2004
Posts: 2687
Location: Seattle, WA
Warp wrote:
Zurreco wrote:
This isn't about friends, it's about the collective polis rising up to help eachother quell a common enemy: arrogant douchebaggy instigators.
Sticks and stones. Having group support must be a real comfort. You don't have to fight the "enemy" alone.
Didn't I just say that I hated everyone?
Hey, OgreSlayeR: suck a dick.
Your point is now instantly disproven, Warp. However, I will tell you, since you will apparently never know, that having people agree with you is a very comforting thing.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Former player
Joined: 8/1/2004
Posts: 2687
Location: Seattle, WA
Warp wrote:
It is logical that friends will defend friends.
I hate every single person that posted in this thread. This isn't about friends, it's about the collective polis rising up to help eachother quell a common enemy: arrogant douchebaggy instigators.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Former player
Joined: 8/1/2004
Posts: 2687
Location: Seattle, WA
essay mode:
For starters, thanks for writing a boatload of text on what most of us already know. Thank god Warp is here to tell me what a logical fallacy is!
I never said that your insults were the cause of your error: the fact that you are dismissing his comments and assuming the worst because of what he thinks is what makes you wrong. He dislikes super-glitched movies, and so he votes against a super-glitched movie. According to you, though, his attempt to give a valid opinion is actually 'sabotaging the voting system', though the only reason you can give for this is that you presume his reaction was kneejerk, rather than honest.
You are claiming that his actions are... well, not wrong, but certainly not proper, despite the fact that he is well within the bounds of making applicable claims. You admit that you assumed that his vote was a form of protest, and that you believe that he is lying about what he says. That, in itself, is a personal attack on him: you think he is a liar. Due to this, you think it's logical to say that anything he says is questionable, and so any of his statements, including his initial claim that this movie is not entertaining, are of no merit. This is a logical fallacy.
And yes, you can be wrong. Even if Necro voted against this movie because of it's glitch heavy nature, it is still accurate to his statement that glitched out movies are not interesting to him. So long as he did watch the movie before voting, Necro is 100% in the right for his actions, and you have no moral ground over him. Your attempts to dissuade actions like his is reprehensible because you're essentially saying that anyone who has a certain opinion that is in the very minority should not bother to bring it up, since it is futile to do so. Rather than assuming that an opposing view is wrong, why don't you instead see it as 'viable, but not agreeable?' No one has a right or wrong opinion, and to try to talk down to someone because of their beliefs is a very stupid thing to do.
With that, I REALLY don't want to post in this thread anymore. I would have figure that when many many people started to tell you that you were wrong to decry Necro, you would maybe accept his stance. Instead, you have only admitted that you did make assumptions, though "you still have a strong feeling about them," which means bubkus.
I mean, come on, is your name Nathan Jahnke now?
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Former player
Joined: 8/1/2004
Posts: 2687
Location: Seattle, WA
Ad Hominem :
-A fallacy that attacks the person rather than dealing with the real issue in dispute.
-an argument "against the man" or person. This is a device employed to attack not the issues but rather the one you are arguing with, especially on a personal level or basis. It is usually employed by those whose arguments are weak
(thanks Google!)
When you say "requesting honesty is futile", you're actually saying "I can't expect honesty from you." That is an act of attacking the person rather than their claims.
On what grounds do you doubt the honesty of Necro after he was honest enough to vote no because he did not enjoy the submission? At what point is it that his statements became questionable? Was it when he did something that you didn't agree with, and so rather than accept his stance in an 'agree to disagree' fashion, you decided that he was a saboteur who was not worthy of dignification.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Former player
Joined: 8/1/2004
Posts: 2687
Location: Seattle, WA
Warp wrote:
I don't believe that, but requesting honesty would be futile, I suppose.
Try to grow up a little.
Sweet, personal attacks. You do know that ad hominem is a logical fallacy, right?
Also, if he dislikes glitches, his logic that he preferred the less glitched run over this one makes a lot of sense.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Former player
Joined: 8/1/2004
Posts: 2687
Location: Seattle, WA
Warp wrote:
In that he used it as a protest against overglitched runs, not as an opinion whether this run should be published, obsoleting the previous run.
Assumption.
Warp wrote:
Oh, sure, he read the question in the poll and honestly answered that question. It was not a protest against anything, just a honest unbiased opinion.
Dismissive assumption.
Warp wrote:
By voting no he is telling that the previous video should be kept because it's better. However, that's clearly not his opinion. That's not what he wants to say with his vote. He just wants to protest like a child with a tantrum.
Umm, disagree: if he answered the poll question, it has no bearing on the old movie. What would you do if someone made what you considered a really really terrible run that was accepted, and then someone obsoleted it by 1 second? How would you vote? Keep in mind, the question in the poll is "Vote: Did you like watching this movie?" What it means beyond that is personal speculation.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Former player
Joined: 8/1/2004
Posts: 2687
Location: Seattle, WA
OK well, welcome to internet sarcasm 102. If you haven't completed internet sarcasm 101, it is a prerequisite and we would at this point ask you to complete that course.
You still have yet to explain how he 'abused' the voting system.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Former player
Joined: 8/1/2004
Posts: 2687
Location: Seattle, WA
How is he abusing the voting system? He answered the question of the poll, what more can you ask for? Don't assume that he didn't watch it, because that you look bad.
Necro is free to give his opinion on the run, and the only counterproductivity here is you being dismissive to his beliefs. Did he like the submission? No. Does he want it published? No. Does his opinion in this matter still count? Yes.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Former player
Joined: 8/1/2004
Posts: 2687
Location: Seattle, WA
Warp wrote:
Voting no is kind of pointless here. We already know what your opinion is, so protesting once again (in the form of a "no" vote) is completely pointless. Your vote won't affect the final publication decision, so it's pointless.
Yeah man, your opinion totally doesn't matter, apparently. Why vote against the machine when you know you can't win?
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Former player
Joined: 8/1/2004
Posts: 2687
Location: Seattle, WA
Honestly, I found the game to be very boring and slow, even for an optimal ~9 minute run. I don't think you have any control over this, and you did try to make some parts interesting, so I won't vote no. However, I'm not going to vote yes, since I wouldn't ever watch this if it was published.
