Super Metroid - Reverse Boss Order / Suitless Cyborg Run

2005-12-14 09:39:02 pm

red chamber dream

luke, I'm in semi-agreement with you. I'm not really against Cyborg runs; I really just don't care about them altogether. I can enjoy watching them, but I don't think they take nearly as much skill as a speedrun. Because of this, watching speedruns is immensely more enjoyable, interesting, and relevant to me.

Quote from Spine Shark:

It's not even like "an" as far as I can tell, in that it has a simple rule for usage and sounds better in those cases (except "an historical *" took a long time to come up on me)

The rule is very simple: "who" is a subject; "whom" is an object.

transience

2005-12-14 09:42:21 pm

twenty eight fifty

"cyborg runs" take skill, it is just a different kind of skill. for example, let's say i make a song using a drum machine, a synth program and a program to put it all together. is it automatically inferior because i did not produce it in real time? no, the finished product is all that matters. i see no difference in the two, and i am sure there are crappy tool-assisters just like there are crappy speed runners.

arkarian

2005-12-14 09:45:08 pm

red chamber dream

imo creating an actual (good) song using drums, guitars, etc. would take more skill than using a drum machine with synths, etc. no matter how you slice it.

transience

2005-12-14 09:47:46 pm

twenty eight fifty

then you've never heard some of my songs.

nate

2005-12-14 09:48:04 pm

an argument can't proceed with subjective assumptions ("good").

spineshark

2005-12-14 09:49:26 pm

in the name of justice!

Quote from Arkarian:

Quote from Spine Shark:

It's not even like "an" as far as I can tell, in that it has a simple rule for usage and sounds better in those cases (except "an historical *" took a long time to come up on me)

The rule is very simple: "who" is a subject; "whom" is an object.

I don't really pick up on stuff like that... :( but at least somebody explained it rather than being all "i am better than you because i know how to use 'whom,' and you will never now the deadly secret contained within"

Though even though I know now how to use it I still can't imagine how the guy decided our language wouldn't be complete without different undetermined pronouns for objects and people. That stuff is for like, Spanish, we were supposed to get all sorts of bad silent letters, and vowels with a ton of pronunciations and stuff instead.

As for what trans and Ark said, I respect that there are people who enjoy making and watching these runs, but I doubt it would affect me too much if they'd never existed in the first place. I still think they are too obsessed with "perfection" to have the soul for true beauty. I couldn't agree with anything more than luke's statement about the demonstration side, the truly incredible and entertaining.

And to pull a topical hat trick, the real skill in music is composing. Period.

[quote="Arkarian"][quote="Spine Shark"]It's not even like "an" as far as I can tell, in that it has a simple rule for usage and sounds better in those cases (except "an historical *" took a long time to come up on me)[/quote]
The rule is [i]very[/i] simple: "who" is a subject; "whom" is an object.[/quote]I don't really pick up on stuff like that... :(  but at least somebody explained it rather than being all "i am better than you because i know how to use 'whom,' and you will never now the deadly secret contained within"

Though even though I know now how to use it I still can't imagine how the guy decided our language wouldn't be complete without different undetermined pronouns for objects and people.  That stuff is for like, Spanish, we were supposed to get all sorts of bad silent letters, and vowels with a ton of pronunciations and stuff instead.

As for what trans and Ark said, I respect that there are people who enjoy making and watching these runs, but I doubt it would affect me too much if they'd never existed in the first place.  I still think they are too obsessed with "perfection" to have the soul for true beauty.  I couldn't agree with anything more than luke's statement about the demonstration side, the truly incredible and entertaining.

And to pull a topical hat trick, the real skill in music is composing.  Period.

arkarian

2005-12-14 09:51:01 pm

red chamber dream

This particular arguement has to include subjective assumptions. No other way to measure music.

nate

2005-12-14 09:53:24 pm

then it's best left unargued.

s.shark, maybe you should go back in time and help the normans rule england for a few years longer. then, if there were any english left at all, it wouldn't have shit for case markings anymore, and you also wouldn't have to worry about learning french in school, because you would already know it.

spineshark

2005-12-14 09:55:40 pm

in the name of justice!

You can go all "J. Evans Pritchard" on music.
for those who don't get it, in the movie "Dead Poets Society" he wrote the "Understanding Poetry" essay that Keating hates so very very much

Ark, if the song is poorly written, no amount of skillful traditional instrumentation, or any amount of drums and synth, will make it sound appealing.

Random Zelda Person

2005-12-14 10:03:06 pm

"And so if we imagine the perfection of the poem is an x-coordinate, and..."

Quote from Arkarian:

Quote from Spine Shark:

It's not even like "an" as far as I can tell, in that it has a simple rule for usage and sounds better in those cases (except "an historical *" took a long time to come up on me)

The rule is very simple: "who" is a subject; "whom" is an object.

What about "I chatted with Bob who[m] is a killer tomato"? That sort of situation tends to screw me up...

arkarian

2005-12-14 10:10:45 pm

red chamber dream

Quote from Random Zelda Person:

What about "I chatted with Bob who[m] is a killer tomato"? That sort of situation tends to screw me up...

The sentence should read, "I chatted with Bob, who is a killer tomato." Can't forget that comma. In that sentence, "who" is modifying "Bob". It's referring to Bob's traits/personality. "Whom" is never used in that case.

Yoshi348

2005-12-14 10:43:31 pm

PAGE BREAKER

Ready and willing.

I'm at a... respectful impasse here with nate now, mainly because you know I can't leave you guys here. There's too many rocking people now. And I guess I'm going to need to embrace the "double iconclast" role I so often get in my life. And I'm a hopeless optimist. Yays!

Remember, Pandora's box had hope inside.

Kejardon

2005-12-14 11:45:14 pm

Embarrasing Fact: Power suit made by lowest bidder

Quote from transience:

"cyborg runs" take skill, it is just a different kind of skill.

No. Cyborg runs take knowledge, and some skill if you plan the route yourself. However, planning a route ahead of time and perfecting it is easier than playing a game in real time, putting a planned route into action, and handling mistakes and making quick judgements on the fly. THAT is the skill that people who appreciate human speedruns look for. Cyborg runs completely remove the requirement for that skill.

Planning the route is something needed by both parties, anyways. This is generally something done by the entire community though, not just one person. When you're watching a run, you can't tell who's responsible for what trick unless the person making the run says how they learned it.

Trebor

2005-12-14 11:58:09 pm

Pronouns always bothered me in school as well, because I was never quite sure where to use the two different cases. I learned it eventually, but the process wasn't fun (some places were obvious, but others that were wrong sounded just as good, if not better, than the right answers).

As for the copyright issue, I think this was said in passing somewhere up there. The whole point about violating copyright infringement by selling DVDs can be explained away by the simple sentence, "We aren't charging for the runs themselves; we are charging for the labor involved in producing the runs."

And from there, the only issue is whether G4 has permission to use our 'work' without permission, with 'work' referring to the fact that someone had to convert the run from an analog format to a digital format. At the very least, G4 is stealing that.

EDIT: <3 Nate

Ryan Ferneau

2005-12-15 01:03:40 am

Quote from Andrew Mills:

As ridiculous as it may sound, that's the way it is.

Well that's stupid! We should change the laws.

Quote from Radix:

Why? You've got bisq's.

But your site has those huge files of people playing games on the original hardware! That's cool!

Bisqwit

2005-12-15 03:03:06 am

Quote from Radix:

Why? You've got bisq's.

Because the focus of my site is, and has always been, movies that demonstrate playing that no humans are capable of. The more far out, the better.

I don't have the slightest intention on stepping on your territory, Radix.

(To be honest, I've been completely ignoring all gaming sites except when they're pushed in front of me. And when that happens, I might as well enjoy the topic of day.)

To respond to another topic, there's one reason why I liked SaberInBlue's idea. The idea (mindscape) of my site, as I see it, is not "speedrunning improved with tools" (as 'tool-assisted speedrun' leads to think), but "awesome movies made as if a cyborg/superhuman/god were playing" (which is what 'cyborg run' leads to think).
But "tool-assisted speedrun" does technically explain precisely what the movies are, and it is an established term, so I'm sticking to that.

As for the purpose of my site, I agree with transience's thoughts. But we do also have people who think of rerecording as an opportunity to do 'perfected speedruns' (Deviance for example), and I can't think of a good reason to ignore them. They might even be a majority. And, because there is no theoretical limit to the number of submissions we might receive and we have to keep a threshold in them, that is judge them, speed-oriented movies are much easier to judge and compare than art-oriented movies.

[quote="Radix"]Why? You've got bisq's.[/quote]
Because the focus of my site is, and has always been, movies that demonstrate playing that no humans are capable of. The more far out, the better.

I don't have the slightest intention on stepping on your territory, Radix.

(To be honest, I've been completely ignoring all gaming sites except when they're pushed in front of me. And when that happens, I might as well enjoy the topic of day.)

To respond to another topic, there's one reason why I liked SaberInBlue's idea. The idea (mindscape) of my site, as I see it, is not "speedrunning improved with tools" (as 'tool-assisted speedrun' leads to think), but "awesome movies made as if a cyborg/superhuman/god were playing" (which is what 'cyborg run' leads to think).
But "tool-assisted speedrun" does technically explain precisely what the movies are, and it is an [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tool-assisted_speedrun]established term[/url], so I'm sticking to that.

As for the purpose of my site, I agree with transience's thoughts. But we do also have people who think of rerecording as an opportunity to do 'perfected speedruns' (Deviance for example), and I can't think of a good reason to ignore them. They might even be a majority. And, because there is no theoretical limit to the number of submissions we might receive and we [i]have[/i] to keep a threshold in them, that is judge them, speed-oriented movies are much easier to judge and compare than art-oriented movies.

Andrew Mills

2005-12-15 03:59:18 am

Strategy Guide Writer

Quote from Trebor:

As for the copyright issue, I think this was said in passing somewhere up there. The whole point about violating copyright infringement by selling DVDs can be explained away by the simple sentence, "We aren't charging for the runs themselves; we are charging for the labor involved in producing the runs."

Somehow though, I reckon you'd have a VERY tough job getting away with that line in a court of law. It's akin to a pirater saying:

"Well m'lord, Im not actually charging for the copyrighted material contained within these copied Disney dvds. I'm actually only charging for the labour that went into producing them."

Doesn't work does it (unfortunately)? Wink

SABERinBLUE

2005-12-15 05:12:05 am

Cook of the Sea

Quote from Bisqwit:

To respond to another topic, there's one reason why I liked SaberInBlue's idea. The idea (mindscape) of my site, as I see it, is not "speedrunning improved with tools" (as 'tool-assisted speedrun' leads to think), but "awesome movies made as if a cyborg/superhuman/god were playing" (which is what 'cyborg run' leads to think).

I didn't really dare to hope my idea would take off, and I didn't have any idea it would go as badly on the forum as it did either, but I never dreamed I hear someone say something that close to what I was thinking when I thought of it. To speak for no one but myself, that makes all this worth the headache it turned out to be.

Chanoire

2005-12-15 06:14:02 am

rbo_thread gained a level!
int +2
wis +3
atk -4
def -4

...sorry. But it was a pleasant surprise to find that the heated arguments seem to have cooled off and interesting contributions to the topics at hand as well as interesting sidetracks have occurred. So many disparate things to reply to now...

- the a/an thing has affected some words interestingly. "Apron" used to be "napron" (I speculate a relationship to "napkin"), but "a napron" turned into "an apron". I'd guess that this was backformed based on the a/an rule already present in English, but couldn't state definitively that things happened in that order. I wouldn't sweat "an historical..."; as far as I'm concerned, a/an is a strictly phonetic choice, and if the h isn't silent in your dialect then there's no reason not to use 'an', even if the rulebooks say otherwise. I'm a ridiculous mixture of prescriptive and descriptive, though, which is to say that I think everyone else should follow the rules I like.

- For all its quirks, I don't think English has a horrible case system considering that only pronouns have different declensions. It's probably just as well that we're not dealing with Latin's five declensions, at least for people trying to learn English. I seem to recall French having a few pitfalls regarding object pronouns too, though not specifics.

- I think I agree with transience regarding tool-assisted/cyborg/etc runs -- I like the showmanship and don't really care about the speed. When I watched that first SM emuvid that stirred things up I was amused at getting the Dachora out of its tunnel and then mimicking its movements, and this was far more interesting to me than the final time. If the point is to be entertaining, then take some time and put entertaining stuff in, rather than trying to make a virtue of speed when it's essentially meaningless. It's kind of like the difference between the circus and the Olympics. Yes, I know there are all sorts of holes to pick in that comparison. Movie special effects and the Olympics, maybe.

- There is definitely strategy in Monopoly. I couldn't get anyone to play with me when I was a kid (well, the only candidates were my parents, who only played occasionally) so I used to reread this book of strategy over and over. No, I don't claim skill in it, because I pretty much never got to try any of it.

- My fiancé had an interesting take on the copyright issue. He compared it to sheet music -- photocopying it is forbidden, but playing it and memorizing it and even recording it is not. It might be worth looking into it from the performing arts angle rather than an argument of omission about the result of a computer program. (His feeling on the other stuff was that copyright would certainly belong to the runner and not Nintendo, but that this wouldn't make much difference regarding G4 unless exclusive distribution by SDA was part of the terms of submission, or something like that. He is not a lawyer, blah blah blah.)

- Composing and performing music is an interesting parallel (referring to the discussion here, not the above) but I don't know if it works. The distinction between composition and performance is fuzzy here, as transience and Ark both seem to be talking about the process of producing a recording, but I get the drift that transience is also talking about composing the piece which is being produced, perhaps as part of the same process (as opposed to writing out sheet music and then performing it), while that is perhaps less the implication with live instruments, in which whole songs aren't typically created on the fly as part of the take. Then Spine Shark jumps in with the statement that the real skill (and only skill, apparently) is in composing. The existence of electronic-only music "performed" by computers blurs the line between composition and performance, as the programmer can be seen as the performer and is also the composer; however, I think that drawing this distinction is crucial to any analogy between this and the issue of speedrunning, and indeed any discussion of skill in music. The skill of composition is not the same as the skill of performance. While many composers are also highly trained performers and many performers write music, these categories can even be mutually exclusive. The music produced as transience describes may involve great compositional skill, but little of the physical ability required of performers, because the work of actual sound production is done by the hardware, not the person's fingers. Keyboard parts can be recorded in realtime, but do not have to be; when I was working with MIDI in high school and sequencing Tchaikovsky's Romeo and Juliet Fantasy-Overture, I did the majority of the individual entering and editing with the computer keyboard, not the other one, because it was easier for me to copy/paste note events and modify pitch, duration, volume, etc. individually or with group commands than to make my fingers play the parts I was putting in on the keyboard with enough accuracy to make cleaning it up less work than just creating the events in the program from scratch or previously entered material. I consider that it did take a different kind of skill (though not compositional skill): judgment in implementing dynamics and tempo and adjusting balance; the ability to read an orchestra score with instruments pitched in multiple keys and render it correctly; awareness of interval relationships making my extensive use of rather kludgey transpositions possible; basic competence with the program; more judgment in how to deal with instances where there were more separate notes than the hardware could produce simultaneously. And a bit on instrument selection and divvying up the parts among the three synths I was using. In a sense, I performed it. But it's a completely different matter from performing it with an orchestra (except perhaps the score-reading part, if I were conducting).

I've composed a few bars. I do not consider myself a great composer, but let's pretend I am. If I am unable to play a piece I wrote (n.b., we're advised not to compose at the piano so we don't end up limiting ourselves to stuff we can play), does that mean there was no skill in the writing? Absolutely not. How about this: I've conducted an orchestra (the greatest rush EVER, I can't begin to describe it), and I'm told I showed promise as a conductor. Yet I didn't write the music and I didn't touch an instrument; I am, in fact, about as good at playing musical instruments as I am at playing videogames, a comparison I know Kejardon will appreciate. And yet I can study the games and analyze them and conceivably could contribute a suggestion that pans out even though I can't pull it off myself.

There are a few ways to relate this to the nominal topic. The comparison between my sequencing R and J and producing a tool-assisted run was inescapable; it is, in fact, tool-assisted music. The parallel comparison between the live performance with a single-segment speedrun (and a studio recording or rehearsal with a segmented one) is also straightforward, though it breaks down when, as nate observed, you try to define what a good musical performance is compared to a good speedrun, which has a numeric value. There are certainly others, though; people miss notes in concerts and even recordings while still creating incredible music, as runners miss shinesparks and walljumps and still pull off incredible times. A recording of someone playing only synths would be akin to an emulation run, where although there is a person actually playing it may be impossible to tell when some computerized assistance was used. And, obviously, things can be synthesized which are beyond human hands to play.

A more concrete analogy before I shut up about this. Consider a game -- I'm thinking SM since I know it best -- as the musical piece, composed by someone other than the performer (usually). Rhapsody in Blue (known to some as the United Airlines music :P) was written with extensive player interpretation intended...as in, when the conductor got the piece the day of the performance there were big blank sections where the pianist had solo sections that weren't yet on paper. The piece itself has (at least) two primary "official" versions, with the majority of the material identical but other sections unique to each, or occurring at different points. Two different 100% routes, you could say. Yet the piece itself has far more versions that are recognizable and identifyable as Rhapsody in Blue, such as all those UA commercials and their &!*# hold lines use, and these do not sound wrong for having bits and pieces strung together in a totally different order from the original, or being reorchestrated and rearranged, or being out and out shortened...it's all Metroid, I mean, Rhapsody. Maybe not the route you know best, the one which has it all, but it's still there. Your any% or low% runs or even reverse boss runs, perhaps. I know of no other musical piece that has this flexibility, but there it is. Maybe the person who arranges this -- plans the route and suggests strategies -- isn't even in the orchestra, though it's not unusual for the piano soloist to also be the conductor. And however many rehearsals there are, the performance is done live, without rerecords, by a single soloist (close enough) with their own two realtime hands. And then consider a synthesized version, either a direct transcription or a new arrangement, with brilliantly impossible piano flourishes and instruments playing out of their normal ranges and whatnot.

I might add that even though the composer wrote the music and had it published, it was for the purposes of other people playing it, and he probably wouldn't own the recordings made of it -- though the publisher would object to the sheet music itself being illicitly distributed. And...drat, I've forgotten the other parallel I was going to wring out of this, which is probably just as well.

(Good arrangement and performance CAN save a lackluster composition or melody, though. Brahms' 2nd mvt 1, the piece I conducted, has the most boring primary melody imaginable, but it's an incredible piece.)

rbo_thread gained a level!
int  +2
wis +3
atk -4
def -4

...sorry.  But it was a pleasant surprise to find that the heated arguments seem to have cooled off and interesting contributions to the topics at hand as well as interesting sidetracks have occurred.  So many disparate things to reply to now...

- the a/an thing has affected some words interestingly.  "Apron" used to be "napron" (I speculate a relationship to "napkin"), but "a napron" turned into "an apron".  I'd guess that this was backformed based on the a/an rule already present in English, but couldn't state definitively that things happened in that order.  I wouldn't sweat "an historical..."; as far as I'm concerned, a/an is a strictly phonetic choice, and if the h isn't silent in your dialect then there's no reason not to use 'an', even if the rulebooks say otherwise.  I'm a ridiculous mixture of prescriptive and descriptive, though, which is to say that I think everyone else should follow the rules I like.

- For all its quirks, I don't think English has a horrible case system considering that only pronouns have different declensions.  It's probably just as well that we're not dealing with Latin's five declensions, at least for people trying to learn English.  I seem to recall French having a few pitfalls regarding object pronouns too, though not specifics.

- I think I agree with transience regarding tool-assisted/cyborg/etc runs -- I like the showmanship and don't really care about the speed.  When I watched that first SM emuvid that stirred things up I was amused at getting the Dachora out of its tunnel and then mimicking its movements, and this was far more interesting to me than the final time.  If the point is to be entertaining, then take some time and put entertaining stuff in, rather than trying to make a virtue of speed when it's essentially meaningless.  It's kind of like the difference between the circus and the Olympics.  Yes, I know there are all sorts of holes to pick in that comparison.  Movie special effects and the Olympics, maybe.

-  There is definitely strategy in Monopoly.  I couldn't get anyone to play with me when I was a kid (well, the only candidates were my parents, who only played occasionally) so I used to reread this book of strategy over and over.  No, I don't claim skill in it, because I pretty much never got to try any of it.

- My fiancé had an interesting take on the copyright issue.  He compared it to sheet music -- photocopying it is forbidden, but playing it and memorizing it and even recording it is not.  It might be worth looking into it from the performing arts angle rather than an argument of omission about the result of a computer program.  (His feeling on the other stuff was that copyright would certainly belong to the runner and not Nintendo, but that this wouldn't make much difference regarding G4 unless exclusive distribution by SDA was part of the terms of submission, or something like that.  He is not a lawyer, blah blah blah.)

- Composing and performing music is an interesting parallel (referring to the discussion here, not the above) but I don't know if it works.  The distinction between composition and performance is fuzzy here, as transience and Ark both seem to be talking about the process of producing a recording, but I get the drift that transience is also talking about composing the piece which is being produced, perhaps as part of the same process (as opposed to writing out sheet music and then performing it), while that is perhaps less the implication with live instruments, in which whole songs aren't typically created on the fly as part of the take.   Then Spine Shark jumps in with the statement that the real skill (and [i]only[/i] skill, apparently) is in composing.  The existence of electronic-only music "performed" by computers blurs the line between composition and performance, as the programmer can be seen as the performer and is also the composer; however, I think that drawing this distinction is crucial to any analogy between this and the issue of speedrunning, and indeed any discussion of skill in music.  The skill of composition is not the same as the skill of performance.  While many composers are also highly trained performers and many performers write music, these categories can even be mutually exclusive.  The music produced as transience describes may involve great compositional skill, but little of the physical ability required of performers, because the work of actual sound production is done by the hardware, not the person's fingers.  Keyboard parts can be recorded in realtime, but do not have to be; when I was working with MIDI in high school and sequencing Tchaikovsky's Romeo and Juliet Fantasy-Overture, I did the majority of the individual entering and editing with the computer keyboard, not the other one, because it was easier for me to copy/paste note events and modify pitch, duration, volume, etc. individually or with group commands than to make my fingers play the parts I was putting in on the keyboard with enough accuracy to make cleaning it up less work than just creating the events in the program from scratch or previously entered material.  I consider that it did take a different kind of skill (though not compositional skill): judgment in implementing dynamics and tempo and adjusting balance; the ability to read an orchestra score with instruments pitched in multiple keys and render it correctly; awareness of interval relationships making my extensive use of rather kludgey transpositions possible; basic competence with the program; more judgment in how to deal with instances where there were more separate notes than the hardware could produce simultaneously.  And a bit on instrument selection and divvying up the parts among the three synths I was using.  In a sense, I performed it.  But it's a completely different matter from performing it with an orchestra (except perhaps the score-reading part, if I were conducting).

I've composed a few bars.  I do not consider myself a great composer, but let's pretend I am.  If I am unable to play a piece I wrote (n.b., we're advised not to compose at the piano so we don't end up limiting ourselves to stuff we can play), does that mean there was no skill in the writing?  Absolutely not.  How about this: I've conducted an orchestra (the greatest rush EVER, I can't begin to describe it), and I'm told I showed promise as a conductor.  Yet I didn't write the music and I didn't touch an instrument; I am, in fact, about as good at playing musical instruments as I am at playing videogames, a comparison I know Kejardon will appreciate.  And yet I can study the games and analyze them and conceivably could contribute a suggestion that pans out even though I can't pull it off myself.

There are a few ways to relate this to the nominal topic.  The comparison between my sequencing R and J and producing a tool-assisted run was inescapable; it is, in fact, tool-assisted music.  The parallel comparison between the live performance with a single-segment speedrun (and a studio recording or rehearsal with a segmented one) is also straightforward, though it breaks down when, as nate observed, you try to define what a good musical performance is compared to a good speedrun, which has a numeric value.  There are certainly others, though; people miss notes in concerts and even recordings while still creating incredible music, as runners miss shinesparks and walljumps and still pull off incredible times.  A recording of someone playing only synths would be akin to an emulation run, where although there is a person actually playing it may be impossible to tell when some computerized assistance was used.  And, obviously, things can be synthesized which are beyond human hands to play.

A more concrete analogy before I shut up about this.  Consider a game -- I'm thinking SM since I know it best -- as the musical piece, composed by someone other than the performer (usually).  Rhapsody in Blue (known to some as the United Airlines music :P) was written with extensive player interpretation intended...as in, when the conductor got the piece the day of the performance there were big blank sections where the pianist had solo sections that weren't yet on paper.  The piece itself has (at least) two primary "official" versions, with the majority of the material identical but other sections unique to each, or occurring at different points.  Two different 100% routes, you could say.  Yet the piece itself has far more versions that are recognizable and identifyable as Rhapsody in Blue, such as all those UA commercials and their &!*# hold lines use, and these do not sound wrong for having bits and pieces strung together in a totally different order from the original, or being reorchestrated and rearranged, or being out and out shortened...it's all Metroid, I mean, Rhapsody.  Maybe not the route you know best, the one which has it all, but it's still there.  Your any% or low% runs or even reverse boss runs, perhaps.  I know of no other musical piece that has this flexibility, but there it is.  Maybe the person who arranges this -- plans the route and suggests strategies -- isn't even in the orchestra, though it's not unusual for the piano soloist to also be the conductor.  And however many rehearsals there are, the performance is done live, without rerecords, by a single soloist (close enough) with their own two realtime hands.  And then consider a synthesized version, either a direct transcription or a new arrangement, with brilliantly impossible piano flourishes and instruments playing out of their normal ranges and whatnot.

I might add that even though the composer wrote the music and had it published, it was for the purposes of other people playing it, and he probably wouldn't own the recordings made of it -- though the publisher would object to the sheet music itself being illicitly distributed.  And...drat, I've forgotten the other parallel I was going to wring out of this, which is probably just as well.

(Good arrangement and performance CAN save a lackluster composition or melody, though.  Brahms' 2nd mvt 1, the piece I conducted, has the most boring primary melody imaginable, but it's an incredible piece.)

transience

2005-12-15 07:59:59 am

twenty eight fifty

Quote from chanoire:

If the point is to be entertaining, then take some time and put entertaining stuff in, rather than trying to make a virtue of speed when it's essentially meaningless.

"virtue" is the perfect word here - speed does not always equal entertainment, and the purpose of these videos should be to demonstrate how far you can bend the rules.

however, it is clear that people like these "tool-assisted speedruns", since they're rather popular. therefore, it doesn't really matter what i think.

Quote from kejardon:

No. Cyborg runs take knowledge, and some skill if you plan the route yourself. However, planning a route ahead of time and perfecting it is easier than playing a game in real time, putting a planned route into action, and handling mistakes and making quick judgements on the fly. THAT is the skill that people who appreciate human speedruns look for. Cyborg runs completely remove the requirement for that skill.

i disagree - let's say that you and i are making "cyborg runs" of the same game. our products are going to be different unless we completely copy a preexisting video. in that sense, the patience/creativity/whatever of the videomaker is their skill.

[quote="chanoire"]If the point is to be entertaining, then take some time and put entertaining stuff in, rather than trying to make a virtue of speed when it's essentially meaningless.[/quote]

"virtue" is the perfect word here - speed does not always equal entertainment, and the purpose of these videos should be to demonstrate how far you can bend the rules.

however, it is clear that people like these "tool-assisted speedruns", since they're rather popular. therefore, it doesn't really matter what i think.

[quote="kejardon"]No. Cyborg runs take knowledge, and some skill if you plan the route yourself. However, planning a route ahead of time and perfecting it is easier than playing a game in real time, putting a planned route into action, and handling mistakes and making quick judgements on the fly. THAT is the skill that people who appreciate human speedruns look for. Cyborg runs completely remove the requirement for that skill.[/quote]

i disagree - let's say that you and i are making "cyborg runs" of the same game. our products are going to be different unless we completely copy a preexisting video. in that sense, the patience/creativity/whatever of the videomaker is their skill.

Ekarderif

2005-12-15 08:32:36 am

Okay, a few things here. I might as well list them all here.

1) The copyright issue may in fact go both ways. Given that we are using copyrighted material (specifically images, sounds, and game ideas), we may in fact be infringing upon the law. However, the produced work (that is the series of buttons, the uncanny reflexes, the planning involved) is definitely original. We may be infringing video game companies by showing the recordings, but if that's the case, G4 is infringing upon both our work and the video game companies. In essence, they are breaking the law between twice and infinity times as much as we are.

2) Bisqwit, your latest actions have shown me that you are truly one of a kind. Beyond all I've seen with your community, you strike me as the only one who understands both treads. I commend that. It appears I have been too harsh with my opinions. My previous attempts at understanding your community usually coincided with the lack of new ideas (BoltR and Megafrost at the time... BoltR has more than made up since), harsh ignorance (Omega being the latest), or complete douchebaggery (Graveworm!). If everyone at your site was like you, I'd love to join in on the fun, but alas this is not the case.

3) My emu rape is on hiatus. Unlike before, I have no intention of finishing it now. Nate has shown that he has no respect for what I do, and if he represents what the community wishes, I don't feel any urge to continue. I did say that I'd host it off my own server, but if the community is disinterested, is there a real point? I'm straddling between Metroid 2002 and Bisqwit, but neither will enjoy what I have to offer.

4) In my mind, Nate has grown from a respectable figurehead into a obsessive, ironfisted despot. Much has been brought up through this thread; however, this has not started recently. I had previously disappeared for pretty much the same reason (though nobody knew it at the time and it doesn't seem like anybody figured it out either). Nate may have resolved his differences with Yoshi, but he has broadened them with me. Call it winter break. Call it extended vacation. Call it whatever you want. Goodbye.

Okay, a few things here. I might as well list them all here.

1) The copyright issue may in fact go both ways. Given that we are using copyrighted material (specifically images, sounds, and game ideas), we [i]may[/i] in fact be infringing upon the law. However, the produced work (that is the series of buttons, the uncanny reflexes, the planning involved) is definitely original. We [i]may[/i] be infringing video game companies by showing the recordings, but if that's the case, G4 is infringing upon both our work [b]and[/b] the video game companies. In essence, they are breaking the law between twice and infinity times as much as we are.

2) Bisqwit, your latest actions have shown me that you are truly one of a kind. Beyond all I've seen with your community, you strike me as the only one who understands both treads. I commend that. It appears I have been too harsh with my opinions. My previous attempts at understanding your community usually coincided with the lack of new ideas (BoltR and Megafrost at the time... BoltR has more than made up since), harsh ignorance (Omega being the latest), or complete douchebaggery (Graveworm!). If everyone at your site was like you, I'd love to join in on the fun, but alas this is not the case.

3) My emu rape is on hiatus. Unlike before, I have no intention of finishing it now. Nate has shown that he has no respect for what I do, and if he represents what the community wishes, I don't feel any urge to continue. I did say that I'd host it off my own server, but if the community is disinterested, is there a real point? I'm straddling between Metroid 2002 and Bisqwit, but neither will enjoy what I have to offer.

4) In my mind, Nate has grown from a respectable figurehead into a obsessive, ironfisted despot. Much has been brought up through this thread; however, this has not started recently. I had previously disappeared for pretty much the same reason (though nobody knew it at the time and it doesn't seem like anybody figured it out either). Nate may have resolved his differences with Yoshi, but he has broadened them with me. Call it winter break. Call it extended vacation. Call it whatever you want. Goodbye.

Radix

2005-12-15 10:50:40 am

Quote from Ekarderif:

1) The copyright issue may in fact go both ways. Given that we are using copyrighted material (specifically images, sounds, and game ideas), we may in fact be infringing upon the law. However, the produced work (that is the series of buttons, the uncanny reflexes, the planning involved) is definitely original. We may be infringing video game companies by showing the recordings, but if that's the case, G4 is infringing upon both our work and the video game companies.

I've already mentioned the dual aspect in my post on lawyers.com but it was shot down. I think very few people know what a derivative work is like I said. Wikipedia says: "It prevents others from misappropriating the original work of a creator and redistributing it with "trivial" changes without permission. If a derivative work is created with the permission of the original creator, the secondary creator maintains a copyright interest in only the aspects of the derivative work that are his or her original creations." Tell me what "trivial changes" a speed run is from distributing the GAME. That's right, it's completely different. How about trivial changes of distrubting the art work, sound track etc? Pretty vast changes there.

Quote from Ekarderif:

4) In my mind, Nate has grown from a respectable figurehead into a obsessive, ironfisted despot.

What crawled up your butt and died? :?

[quote="Ekarderif"]1) The copyright issue may in fact go both ways. Given that we are using copyrighted material (specifically images, sounds, and game ideas), we [i]may[/i] in fact be infringing upon the law. However, the produced work (that is the series of buttons, the uncanny reflexes, the planning involved) is definitely original. We [i]may[/i] be infringing video game companies by showing the recordings, but if that's the case, G4 is infringing upon both our work [b]and[/b] the video game companies.[/quote]

I've already mentioned the dual aspect in my post on lawyers.com but it was shot down. I think very few people know what a derivative work is like I said. Wikipedia says: "It prevents others from misappropriating the original work of a creator and redistributing it with "trivial" changes without permission. If a derivative work is created with the permission of the original creator, the secondary creator maintains a copyright interest in only the aspects of the derivative work that are his or her original creations." Tell me what "trivial changes" a speed run is from distributing the GAME. That's right, it's completely different. How about trivial changes of distrubting the art work, sound track etc? Pretty vast changes there.

[quote="Ekarderif"]4) In my mind, Nate has grown from a respectable figurehead into a obsessive, ironfisted despot.[/quote]

What crawled up your butt and died?  :?

Red Scarlet

2005-12-15 11:00:48 am

I('d) like to watch (some MP3 runs)

Oh snap, it's Megaman helmet av guy. Hi Bis.

Ek, I am still interested in your 9% hard.

Purple Lizard

2005-12-15 11:17:48 am

Ekarderif: I think many people here, including myself, are still interested in watching the 9% hard. It'd be pretty damn sucky if you stopped making them available one way or another to those of us who have been wanting to see more.

Saturn

2005-12-15 11:41:51 am

Welcome to Metroid 2002, Bisqwit.