Nice initiative Bisqwit. I hope you will give some consideration to my request/wish of you participating in the discussion, perhaps both in general and in the case of specific movies/disagreements. After all, you're the only person who matters in this discussion and without you we can talk ourselves to death without knowing if it's making any difference.
I have posted the general guidelines / aims regarding the movie stars in the first post of this thread.
As for the actual decisions, I will usually make changes if enough people raise noise about it and I happen to agree.
The green turquoise star is granted for movies that are not going to be permanently starred, but are supposed to stand out in the list of recently published movies.
Great, thanks. Since Super Mario World is a game we've recently discussed, I'll start with a quick comparison between the two published runs, based on the guidelines/aims.
VIPer7's 96 exit run:
- Audiovisually attractive. I don't really know what this means. Is it safe to assume it wouldn't affect this decision, since it's the same game?
- Keeps the pace and doesn't exhaust the audience with length. I've read opinions several times that this movie starts to feel repetitve after a while, because many levels are simply flown through, with some enemy bopping to help with entertainment. Arguably, after a certain point, this will start to feel old. Also, arguably, this movie is on the longish side of things. Other than this point, I have no complaints or comments.
- Demonstrates level of playing skill that appeals to audience who have never seen the game before (and thus don't know what to consider "normal" and what is extraordinary). This run is excellent in this regard. I don't think anyone will object with this statement.
- Demonstrates level of playing skill that pleases even the timeattack experts in general and those knowledgeful at the game. This was certainly true when the movie was submitted and published. It is certainly not true today.
JXQ's 11 exit movie:
- Audiovisually attractive. Nothing is different here. If I'm wrong please tell me.
- Keeps the pace and doesn't exhaust the audience with length. I think this point is the most debatable. It certainly doesn't exhaust the audience with length. Does it "keep the pace"? I'm not sure. As you all may have read, I enjoy full runs more than any% runs in general, and this run is a good example why. I feel that this run doesn't properly show off this game or its potential. Except a very cool use of a shell to avoid landing in water, the first three levels are nothing special (to clarify, I'm now comparing with what a full run of the game would show off in terms of awesome things Mario does). The Castle is good (only thanks to the great P-switch jump), followed by two uneventful levels (the palette screwup could arguably be counted as something cool). The Ghost house is great, Star World 1 is great (at least to new people, which is what's important), Star World 2+3 are uneventful and Star World 4 is good. Bowser's Castle is uneventful. My point is, the beginning of this movie is, like the full run, very slow/uneventful. The shorter a movie is, the more important it becomes to it not containing slow stretches like I feel this one does. Everyone, please feel free to chime in here with comments.
- Demonstrates level of playing skill that appeals to audience who have never seen the game before (and thus don't know what to consider "normal" and what is extraordinary). This run is even more excellent than VIPer7's full run (examples: Shell jump in water, P-switch jump, flight through stairs, better use of cape in Ghost House (grabbing P-switch) and Star World 4 (grabbing shells and getting feather)). However, the difference here (between VIPer7's and JXQ's) isn't super significant, very cool stuff happens in VIPer7's run as well and an inexperienced watcher will no doubt enjoy them both. Still, this one has better quality.
- Demonstrates level of playing skill that pleases even the timeattack experts in general and those knowledgeful at the game. This is extremely true. This is the best Super Mario World run there is in this regard.
Does anyone think there's anything relevant I've forgotten to mention? Looking at this point by point, I think it comes down to which points you feel are most important. Edit: My personal opinion is that JXQ's movie edges out VIPer7's in every regard except "keeping the pace", and even there VIPer7's movie has recieved some criticism. I'm curious to hear what others have to say.
Here's something I just thought of. I was under the impression that a game's popularity was also a determining factor. Is this true? If it is, are there any other determining factors not mentioned in the first post of this thread? If it isn't, it is my opinion that mine and JXQ's 120 exit SDW run is the most qualified SMW/SDW movie for having a star.
The green turquoise star is granted for movies that are not going to be permanently starred, but are supposed to stand out in the list of recently published movies.
The edit page says, under if the movie is "Recommended for first-time viewers: notable publication". This made me think it would be cool to go through other movies and mark them as notable publications as well. But, saying it's to stand out in the list of "recently published movies" makes me think this won't happen. Bummer.
Bisqwit wrote:
The total number of movies that have a star shouldn't exceed, say, 30. 15 is maybe a good aim...
I think that aiming for a list size proprotional to the total movies may reduce the "this movie is good, but to get a star, some other run must give it away" syndrome, which I personally think doesn't help the star list. (There are currently 23 starred runs, by the way).
ANYWAY, here are the currently starred runs I think clearly do NOT deserve a star:
NES Gradius
NES River City Ransom
SNES Umihara Kawase
I also feel odd about what happened with NES Mega Man. Mega Man 5 took its star after some discussion, but shortly after, a new version was completed, and so it took Mega Man 2's star immediately without discussion apart from the "ZOMG STAR" posts in the published movie thread. I understand that Bisqwit decides the stars. However, this thread here creates the picture that it's at least partly a democratic decision, so I think that either it should be treated as such in all cases, or this thread should be locked.
I'm also curious as to Bisqwit's opinion on Sonic 3 & Knuckles. It's been discussed quite a bit in this thread and in that published movie thread.
<Swordless> Go hug a tree, you vegetarian (I bet you really are one)
ANYWAY, here are the currently starred runs I think clearly do NOT deserve a star:
NES Gradius
NES River City Ransom
SNES Umihara Kawase
I agree with you on Gradius and RCR.
Umihara Kawase is a short fun movie. I'd say it deserves a star, at least for now. If there are too many star movies in the future, maybe some big project can obsolete this little movie's star, but for now I'd say lets keep it.
Audiovisually attractive.
VIPer7: Could use a little more pink.
JXQ: Needs season changes. Unfortunately it would make it very hard to get beneath 11 minutes.
Keeps the pace and doesn't exhaust the audience with length.
VIPer7: In my opinion this run gets repetitive. It was really cool when it was first published, he probably did as good as could be hoped for with no knowledge of the hop glitch as far as "just flying over levels" goes. I don't mind the length, just repetitiveness.
JXQ: Short. Goes fast where possible. I agree with Fabian on most points here. SW3 I think the key jump made it "eventful" for such a short level. I liked bowsers castle also because he managed to get across door 5 with only 2 cage grabs. During slow uneventful parts there are plenty of antics to keep me entertained. Maybe I missed the point of this bold text.
Demonstrates level of playing skill that appeals to audience who have never seen the game before (and thus don't know what to consider "normal" and what is extraordinary).
VIPer7:Yes
JXQ: Yes
Demonstrates level of playing skill that pleases even the timeattack experts in general and those knowledgeful at the game.
VIPer7: Same as Fabian.
JXQ: Agree again. Extensive use of oscillating speed, new water boosting technique (missing leetness), first ever use of 8/5, attempts to optimize fadeout lag in all levels, use of hop glitch where applicable.
As for showing newcomers cool TAS techniques and something "unachievable" to wow them, I think VIPer7 run does the job. In this respect it is fine that it has a star. In my opinion JXQ run deserves to either get a new star, or take the 100% star because I think it is a better run (only because of all the new techniques discovered). Either way, if SDW can have a star then the 120 exit should get it before either of these.
I don't know anything about these other games you guys are talking about.
Here's something I just thought of. I was under the impression that a game's popularity was also a determining factor. Is this true? If it is, are there any other determining factors not mentioned in the first post of this thread? If it isn't, it is my opinion that mine and JXQ's 120 exit SDW run is the most qualified SMW/SDW movie for having a star.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: SDW, even for someone who has never actually played more than 15% of the game (hello!) was beautiful.
Super Mario World... it's good, but it also starts to get very repitive with the same old game over and over, not to mention I'm fairly sure that the movie itself is outdated on tricks and such :P
I've watched all the star runs and completed every game on the recommended page except for Ninja Five-0 and Sonic Advance 2, where I messed around a bit.
That being said, flagitious's Umihara Kawase is one of my favorite runs on the entire site, and I would be strongly against unstarring it. I agree with Gradius and River City Random though. Back a page, I also recommended unstarring (I'm ready for the crazy stares) Bionic Commando and LTTP. If need be, of course... it's not 1-to-1 add/remove but eventually some will need to be removed.
Now, on the non-issue of having two different colored stars, which I think could be confusing, I created a SMW moon icon. 18x18 PNG with alpha transparency, like the others, and I used PNGOUT to compress it all the way down.
What do you think?
More insight from a "relative" newcomer to the site...
Umihara Kawase I'd never watch... well maybe one day I'm *really* bored, but it just seems so off the wall. I've seen the pages with the maps for the game and done my research, but overall it's just... meh to me. Bionic Commando was one of my favorite games back in the 8-bit day, beating it tons of times. Being jewish as well, I don't fault the Jap version, after all I'm here to watch TAS'es, not be offended by the graphics programmers put in the game so long ago. The TAS player isin't the artistic inspiration of the game, so why hold them accountable? I'd still rather see a more well known game starred over a very unknown one.
I *bought* Dragon Warrior when it came out, got another copy from Nintendo Power which I loaned to friends to compete with, and finished the game over 6 times throught the years on many platforms (NES/Emu/GBC basically). I've watched the TAS about 8 times as well - in terms of luck manipulation, it's absolutely fantastic. It remains one of the most watched videos at my house, along with the Zelda 2 by Gigafrost. I haven't checked, but just from how well known the game is, IMHO it should have had a star a long time ago.
On to the star debate, let me throw this at you... If stars are "awards" for being something new people should watch, how is that different from Video Game Awards? You've got Spike awards, magazine awards (many of them), G4 awards (I think)... and in all those, how many just have 1 catagory, "Game of the Year"? I'm wondering why there aren't more catagories for the stars on this site... many videos have many different qualities that can make them suitable for newcombers, maybe it's time to expand a little bit? Imagine this... you have a top-20 list. 20 Games total, ranked on "overall impressiveness", taking into consideration every single facet that makes the video great. You never have more then 20, and as new movies are made, the list can change. Have a page that lists them off the main page. Now, add another sub-catagory off that... Instead of "Must See", have "Exceptionally Played", and give them... I don't know a blue or red star. Here, you can have as many as you want, but they *must* be a contender in some way for a star, and they at least have 1 redeeming quality that really makes it stand out on it's own. Add the reason to the description, and bam, everyone is happy.
I did like the idea to have a section where "If you liked this movie, also see..." is added to games with more then one contender. Make another sub-catagory of stars with a different color, or just add it to the descriptions.
For my own experience, I lurked for about a week before I even pulled up the star page, then watched probably 75% of the ones listed. It did feel like it was a bit long and packed with movies, to agree with Bisquit on that. I don't think it's a reason not to give "awards" to other videos as well played though. If the site did have these "sections" of stars, I'm sure I would work my way through all of the lists in time, just out of interest. Start with the top 20 (or even 10?), then go through the "Honorable Mentions", then check the "Also see..." lists.
But thats two cents from a noob. =P On to more typical behavior for one with the status I carry... OMG there is a less then 5 minute Zelda:ALttP video? How did I manage to miss THAT all this time?? Time to go kill a couple more hours watching videos, starting with that. =)
And since I didn't bring it up, but it seems like a pretty hot topic... Time.
All depends on how much I have. Personally, it dosen't matter to me if a movie is extremely short with glitches or a long 100% run. If I know the game from past experience, chances are very high I'll end up watching the run at some point. Of course, if I'm browsing the site 30 minutes before I leave for work, I'm not going to start watching an hour long video, but chances are I'd download it and look forward to watching it when I get home. The only time length can be a problem (IMHO) is when it gets repetative. But then again, it's not repetative if the entertainment value is there, and if it's not, why does it have a star in the first place?
But I'm an RPG nut, so I don't mind putting an hour into watching a movie for a game that took me 30+ hours to beat. Any straight out leveling parts I'd fast forward through, but I'd still enjoy the movie. Platform/Action games are the same - if it's normally 5 hours to play an any% to completion, I'd watch a 45min any% and enjoy myself.
About the only other thing to add to this is *very* fast runs don't hold my interest. I'm thinking Monopoly here. Sure it's less then a minute download, but it's not really a technical masterpiece of a game. I'll admit I've spent at least an hour reading all the submission comments of the 10+ movies that have surpassed each other, and most of the forum posts for those as well - and really enjoyed the "battle" the people here were having to up each other, but the game is just too boring for me to really feel it's that much of an accomplishment. It's one of those where whats going on behind the scenes is much more interesting then watching it play out... and just by watching the less then a minute run dosen't do justice to how much effort really went into finding the ultimate luck manipulation to make the die rolls so perfect and have the best outcome. When I read the last submission used a custom made program to find the perfect timings with the random number generator, I was very impressed at the dedication. But I still won't waste a minute of my time watching a computer have the worst luck on the planet... an hour long game with my family would me much more entertaining to me.
And slightly off topic - how many posts *does* it take to be able to vote on movies? At the rate I'm going, I might be able to start making my own voice heard sometime late 2007/early 2008 at this rate. =) It was asked earlier, but never replied to in this 9 page thread. I probably missed it somewhere else on the site though.
There was an awards forum idea? I'm not sure about any of that (somewhat new still, remember)... I'm just imagining animated flashing/glowing stars for the cream of the crop, and 2-3 other colored ones for those which are exceptional. To me, it would make it easier to pick out what movies are really worth watching I may have missed, as opposed to sifting through the system lists and just guessing. I've got a lot of respect for the people here and their opinions on whats good and whats not, I think having a more in-depth recommendation system would go a long way.
(Yay for my 3rd, 4th and 5th posts!) =)
I already had an idea of different stars for nesclone (Nesvideos mirror with more features, but nothing specific to it other than some features -- not complete yet, PM if you have comments *shot*), but this idea goes beyond that and into a better category.
(on that note, an actual newbie recommending movies. the irony!)
Uh, yeah, in fact, the awards forum is right below the general forum.
And I think Banarak and a lot of other people are overthinking this whole "star" business. I imagine most new visitors will just watch movies of games they're familiar with or that have an intriguing description. But the site administrators don't want them to feel too let-down if most of the movies they pick are boring, so they put stars on ones that seem very interesting and out of the ordinary. I really don't feel like questioning the star judgment anymore; it's already been totally overanalyzed throughout this topic.
put yourself in my rocketpack if that poochie is one outrageous dude
Right, and besides, why don't we move away from this "star" overanalysis to some "moon" analysis? Better than blue stars, red stars, flashing stars, glowing stars!
How can you say no to that smiling face?? That just screams "Hello, I am a noteworthy publish. Please watch me. 3-up!"
Bisqwit,
Here's something I just thought of. I was under the impression that a game's popularity was also a determining factor. Is this true? If it is, are there any other determining factors not mentioned in the first post of this thread?
Bisqwit,
Are there any other determining factors not mentioned in the first post of this thread?
And FWIW I think it's very reasonable that the popularity of a game is a determining factor so there's no need to lie about it imo.
Hahaha that was super funny, I was reading your post Enhasa and thinking "well thank you for that captain obvious" and then I see users currently browsing this forum: captainobvious. Awesome.
What do you think?
http://tasvideos.org/ updated.
