"Point Out Minor Typos" etc. Topic

2009-05-18 04:23:09 pm

I'm confused by what Mike's options mean / most of the discussion about the game lists. But isn't the best solution that every game appears in the game list for every system it was ever released on? Not that it matters a fig to me.

ZenicReverie

2009-05-18 04:44:26 pm

Waiting hurts my soul...

Depends on if we want to keep the game list like it is. Some games have completely different versions (Aladdin SNES and Genesis), but were released around the same time on different systems. In the case of Mega Man 64, I only asked for that to be added because it was requested in the request thread, but there's already the current run.

I think things are more confusing because we list some games with different versions on the same page, such as PC version vs. console version, but in other cases we don't list these other categories because a run doesn't exist for the game yet under that category. Do you want multiple listings like tasvideos does of the same game title in the list for different categories, or do you want one game page that lists all the categories? A good example is that Cameltry game, which has 3 or 4 different titles for each system it was released on. Would each system have a different listing in the game list for each title, or would it all be under the Cameltry game page? I suppose each title could link to the Cameltry page with a description about the different versions.

Personally, I like having all runs relating to one game under one listing like it is now.

Depends on if we want to keep the game list like it is.  Some games have completely different versions (Aladdin SNES and Genesis), but were released around the same time on different systems.  In the case of Mega Man 64, I only asked for that to be added because it was requested in the request thread, but there's already the current run.

I think things are more confusing because we list some games with different versions on the same page, such as PC version vs. console version, but in other cases we don't list these other categories because a run doesn't exist for the game yet under that category.  Do you want multiple listings like tasvideos does of the same game title in the list for different categories, or do you want one game page that lists all the categories?  A good example is that Cameltry game, which has 3 or 4 different titles for each system it was released on.  Would each system have a different listing in the game list for each title, or would it all be under the Cameltry game page?  I suppose each title could link to the Cameltry page with a description about the different versions.

Personally, I like having all runs relating to one game under one listing like it is now.

VorpalEdge

2009-05-18 05:37:23 pm

welcome to the machine

If it matters, I'd go with option 4: full game list only. I have no objection in principle to sorting it somehow, but the current system divisions are useless. Who (besides vgmr) cares about what system a game is on? If I had to pick a division, I'd go with "sort by series", but as Enhasa said, that has its own problems.

And since we already have "sort alphabetically" and "sort by date posted" (if you're confused, I mean the news page), it doesn't seem to be a pressing issue to me.

tl;dr: just make the site one giant ftp directory - you know you want to! Wink

andrewg

2009-05-18 06:29:54 pm

Hi! I'm andrewg!

Quote from mikwuyma:

I keep on forgetting to tell you this on IRC, Enhasa, so I'll tell you here. Lost levels isn't listed in the SNES game list.

Enhasa, isn't this following the current way we list the games?

http://speeddemosarchive.com/MarioLostLevels.html

Why isn't the Lost Levels listed under the SNES list? There is SNES run on the site as well as the NES version.

Vugmer

2009-05-19 12:27:42 am

Cigar Man

Quote from VorpalEdge:

If it matters, I'd go with option 4: full game list only. I have no objection in principle to sorting it somehow, but the current system divisions are useless. Who (besides vgmr) cares about what system a game is on?

I could be wrong, but I think a lot of people care. I care quite a bit about being able to sort games according to system. I might die without such an option! Would you really want that, Vorpal!? You want me to die!?

TheVoid

2009-05-19 02:38:11 am

Quote from Enhasa:

2) have a login system so people can edit their own info

That would be awesome for the likes of me Wink

I dislike pointing stuff out to you to fix (I try to do it not too much though and just leave the mistakes there, but it's often hard to resist...). I proofread stuff quite a lot but every now and then some typo slips in (Not to mention my own personal obsessive writing thingies such as fixing dots (Hey dex! ;)) but as far as I can remember I never bothered you with that).

But a login system can't work for the comments? Not even if there's someone that gets notified of changes and can act accordingly?
On the other hand, I guess that spambots one way or another could get into that and start to mess stuff up... Hmm.

Well anyway, it would be pretty awesome if I could maintain my own comments. No more need to feel bad about bugging you with it!

mikwuyma

2009-05-19 09:12:16 am

My feelings on The Demon Rush

Quote from andrewg:

Quote from mikwuyma:

I keep on forgetting to tell you this on IRC, Enhasa, so I'll tell you here. Lost levels isn't listed in the SNES game list.

Enhasa, isn't this following the current way we list the games?

http://speeddemosarchive.com/MarioLostLevels.html

Why isn't the Lost Levels listed under the SNES list? There is SNES run on the site as well as the NES version.

Oh yeah, that was the reason why I mentioned SNES Lost Levels in the first place. Turns out I had a point after all. Tongue

UltimateDarius

2009-05-19 09:43:31 am

Back in the game!

Quote from TheVoid:

Quote from Enhasa:

2) have a login system so people can edit their own info

That would be awesome for the likes of me Wink

I dislike pointing stuff out to you to fix (I try to do it not too much though and just leave the mistakes there, but it's often hard to resist...). I proofread stuff quite a lot but every now and then some typo slips in (Not to mention my own personal obsessive writing thingies such as fixing dots (Hey dex! ;)) but as far as I can remember I never bothered you with that).

But a login system can't work for the comments? Not even if there's someone that gets notified of changes and can act accordingly?
On the other hand, I guess that spambots one way or another could get into that and start to mess stuff up... Hmm.

Well anyway, it would be pretty awesome if I could maintain my own comments. No more need to feel bad about bugging you with it!

Seconded.

Also, I see what Ascetic Swordsman was talking about with the scrolling thing in the textbox...what the hell is the deal with that?

[quote="TheVoid"]
[quote="Enhasa"]2) have a login system so people can edit their own info[/quote]
That would be awesome for the likes of me ;)

I dislike pointing stuff out to you to fix (I try to do it not too much though and just leave the mistakes there, but it's often hard to resist...). I proofread stuff quite a lot but every now and then some typo slips in (Not to mention my own personal obsessive writing thingies such as fixing dots (Hey dex! ;)) but as far as I can remember I never bothered you with that).

But a login system can't work for the comments? Not even if there's someone that gets notified of changes and can act accordingly?
On the other hand, I guess that spambots one way or another could get into that and start to mess stuff up... Hmm.

Well anyway, it would be pretty awesome if I could maintain my own comments. No more need to feel bad about bugging you with it!
[/quote]

Seconded.

Also, I see what Ascetic Swordsman was talking about with the scrolling thing in the textbox...what the hell is the deal with that?

Enhasa

Edit history:

Enhasa: 2009-05-19 12:51:38 pm

2009-05-19 12:21:28 pm

everybody wanna tell you the meaning of music

Quote from ExplodingCabbage:

I'm confused by what Mike's options mean / most of the discussion about the game lists. But isn't the best solution that every game appears in the game list for every system it was ever released on?

Even if that was done with no effort (with a lot of finagling you could constantly poll wikipedia or gamefaqs but that doesn't cover all games) and even if that was easily definable, no.

LOL Maur, I don't even care about run time or year either. It's curious to have that functionality because more useful stuff doesn't exist, it's like salt in the wound. I just want to find a run given a game name. If there was no game list, just one giant entire news page, that would be ideal to me. Just find-as-you-type the run, no need to navigate two pages away first. (you other guys can calm down, this would never happen)

Quote from mikwuyma:

Quote from andrewg:

Enhasa, isn't this following the current way we list the games?

http://speeddemosarchive.com/MarioLostLevels.html

Why isn't the Lost Levels listed under the SNES list? There is SNES run on the site as well as the NES version.

Oh yeah, that was the reason why I mentioned SNES Lost Levels in the first place. Turns out I had a point after all. Tongue

Because Lost Levels is originally a NES game. Mario All-Stars is a collection and we don't list collections. Remember, current system means the system listings are for the games, not the runs. You know, I really do think this is for the better. I've always hated the tasvideos method, but it would be even worse for SDA because at least people making TAS's have the tools and inclination to use the first version usually. Not listing collections is definitely the right thing. Who is going to look under PS2 for Genesis games like Ristar?

Quote from TheVoid:

Well anyway, it would be pretty awesome if I could maintain my own comments. No more need to feel bad about bugging you with it!

Actually let me be honest here. I love it when people point out our mistakes (any of Nate and Mike's that get past me qualify as mine in my mind). I completely don't mind changing comments, I'm just trying to scare people into doing them right in the first place. That's because if something ought to be changed, I'll put my time into it. What I don't like are people asking me to change judgment calls all the time, like hey why isn't X on Y's system list. That's just disrespectful, like your opinion is so much better than mine (if it's 50/50, you would just deal with it) that I should spend my time subverting mine to please yours. This doesn't apply to mistakes like Zenic (done before I joined), which are the very rare case. In fact, I can't think of another one right now.

Edit: I just wanted to emphasize because it is not at all obvious, that I don't think any worse of most of the people who ask me about system changes, because they think they're pointing out factual errors when in fact what they think is an error is fully intentional. Maybe I should just make it clear that some things (such as game list) are fully intentional, unless you find something truly weird like Serious Sam is an Atari game.

I don't agree with #1/#3 above really at all, but the only reason why I would do it is because it's way easier and unambiguous, which means people will stop asking. The issue is, do people care about the systems a game is on, or a run? If someone loves the Genesis, would they want to see a run on Genesis Collection? I'm pretty sure it's yes. The other issue is, how important is it that someone looking for Ristar would be able to find it from browsing Genesis? This would have to be someone who never looks at the full list and never looks at the upcoming genre lists. I don't think this is a terribly big deal either I guess, but I guarantee lots of people will rightfully complain that it's stupid that they can't find FF7 on the PS1 page anymore.

On a personal note, I know specifically you drived Grenola to rage and madness, but you are seriously one of my favorite people. I have never been annoyed at anything you have done, don't worry about it.

Quote from UltimateDarius:

Also, I see what Ascetic Swordsman was talking about with the scrolling thing in the textbox...what the hell is the deal with that?

I have no idea what you're talking about. Did you post this in the correct thread? I don't see "Ascetic" or "textbox" in the last three pages here.

[quote="ExplodingCabbage"]
I'm confused by what Mike's options mean / most of the discussion about the game lists. But isn't the best solution that every game appears in the game list for every system it was ever released on?
[/quote]
Even if that was done with no effort (with a lot of finagling you could constantly poll wikipedia or gamefaqs but that doesn't cover all games) and even if that was easily definable, no.

LOL Maur, I don't even care about run time or year either. It's curious to have that functionality because more useful stuff doesn't exist, it's like salt in the wound. I just want to find a run given a game name. If there was no game list, just one giant entire news page, that would be ideal to me. Just find-as-you-type the run, no need to navigate two pages away first. (you other guys can calm down, this would never happen)

[quote="mikwuyma"]
[quote="andrewg"]
Enhasa, isn't this following the current way we list the games?

http://speeddemosarchive.com/MarioLostLevels.html

Why isn't the Lost Levels listed under the SNES list? There is SNES run on the site as well as the NES version.
[/quote]

Oh yeah, that was the reason why I mentioned SNES Lost Levels in the first place. Turns out I had a point after all. :P
[/quote]
Because Lost Levels is originally a NES game. Mario All-Stars is a collection and we don't list collections. Remember, current system means the system listings are for the games, not the runs. You know, I really do think this is for the better. I've always hated the tasvideos method, but it would be even worse for SDA because at least people making TAS's have the tools and inclination to use the first version usually. Not listing collections is definitely the right thing. Who is going to look under PS2 for Genesis games like Ristar?

[quote="TheVoid"]
Well anyway, it would be pretty awesome if I could maintain my own comments. No more need to feel bad about bugging you with it!
[/quote]
Actually let me be honest here. I love it when people point out [i]our[/i] mistakes (any of Nate and Mike's that get past me qualify as mine in my mind). I [i]completely[/i] don't mind changing comments, I'm just trying to scare people into doing them right in the first place. That's because if something ought to be changed, I'll put my time into it. What I don't like are people asking me to change [i]judgment calls[/i] all the time, like hey why isn't X on Y's system list. That's just disrespectful, like your opinion is so much better than mine (if it's 50/50, you would just deal with it) that I should spend my time subverting mine to please yours. This doesn't apply to mistakes like Zenic (done before I joined), which are the very rare case. In fact, I can't think of another one right now.

Edit: I just wanted to emphasize because it is not at all obvious, that I don't think any worse of most of the [i]people[/i] who ask me about system changes, because they think they're pointing out factual errors when in fact what they think is an error is fully intentional. Maybe I should just make it clear that some things (such as game list) are fully intentional, unless you find something truly weird like Serious Sam is an Atari game.

I don't agree with #1/#3 above really at all, but the only reason why I would do it is because it's way easier and unambiguous, which means people will stop asking. The issue is, do people care about the systems a game is on, or a run? If someone loves the Genesis, would they want to see a run on Genesis Collection? I'm pretty sure it's yes. The other issue is, how important is it that someone looking for Ristar would be able to find it from browsing Genesis? This would have to be someone who never looks at the full list and never looks at the upcoming genre lists. I don't think this is a terribly big deal either I guess, but I guarantee lots of people will rightfully complain that it's stupid that they can't find FF7 on the PS1 page anymore.

On a personal note, I know specifically you drived Grenola to rage and madness, but you are seriously one of my favorite people. I have never been annoyed at anything you have done, don't worry about it.

[quote="UltimateDarius"]
Also, I see what Ascetic Swordsman was talking about with the scrolling thing in the textbox...what the hell is the deal with that?
[/quote]
I have no idea what you're talking about. Did you post this in the correct thread? I don't see "Ascetic" or "textbox" in the last three pages here.

ZenicReverie

2009-05-19 12:44:14 pm

Waiting hurts my soul...

Quote from Enhasa:

Quote from mikwuyma:

Quote from andrewg:

Enhasa, isn't this following the current way we list the games?

http://speeddemosarchive.com/MarioLostLevels.html

Why isn't the Lost Levels listed under the SNES list? There is SNES run on the site as well as the NES version.

Oh yeah, that was the reason why I mentioned SNES Lost Levels in the first place. Turns out I had a point after all. Tongue

Because Lost Levels is originally a NES game. Mario All-Stars is a collection and we don't list collections. Remember, current system means the system listings are for the games, not the runs. You know, I really do think this is for the better. I've always hated the tasvideos method, but it would be even worse for SDA because at least people making TAS's have the tools and inclination to use the first version usually. Not listing collections is definitely the right thing. Who is going to look under PS2 for Genesis games like Ristar?

I think it's recognized more as part of the SNES collection in the states because it was not released in the USA on NES.

Quote from Enhasa:

This doesn't apply to mistakes like Zenic mentioned(done before I joined), which are the very rare case. In fact, I can't think of another one right now.

Fixed (at least I hope you don't think I'm a mistake. Wink

LOL)

Quote from Enhasa:

I don't agree with #1/#3 above really at all, but the only reason why I would do it is because it's way easier and unambiguous, which means people will stop asking. The issue is, do people care about the systems a game is on, or a run? If someone loves the Genesis, would they want to see a run on Genesis Collection? I'm pretty sure it's yes. The other issue is, how important is it that someone looking for Ristar would be able to find it from browsing Genesis? This would have to be someone who never looks at the full list and never looks at the upcoming genre lists. I don't think this is a terribly big deal either I guess, but I guarantee lots of people will rightfully complain that it's stupid that they can't find FF7 on the PS1 page anymore.

I think it's about finding the easiest way for viewers to find runs without driving you (or the site maintainer if the job should change) insane. Honestly, I think the average internet user is too quick to ask for help on the web if something takes even a small amount of effort to search for.

Quote from Enhasa:

Quote from UltimateDarius:

Also, I see what Ascetic Swordsman was talking about with the scrolling thing in the textbox...what the hell is the deal with that?

I have no idea what you're talking about. Did you post this in the correct thread? I don't see "Ascetic" or "textbox" in the last three pages here.

He's talking about when modifying posts that the scroll bar goes to the middle of the box while typing even after scrolling down to the bottom. I think it's a browser issue because I don't notice it happening on IE 7. This basically means they have to type blindly, then scroll down to see what they typed. I don't remember the thread AS mentioned it.

[quote="Enhasa"]
[quote="mikwuyma"]
[quote="andrewg"]
Enhasa, isn't this following the current way we list the games?

http://speeddemosarchive.com/MarioLostLevels.html

Why isn't the Lost Levels listed under the SNES list? There is SNES run on the site as well as the NES version.
[/quote]

Oh yeah, that was the reason why I mentioned SNES Lost Levels in the first place. Turns out I had a point after all. :P
[/quote]
Because Lost Levels is originally a NES game. Mario All-Stars is a collection and we don't list collections. Remember, current system means the system listings are for the games, not the runs. You know, I really do think this is for the better. I've always hated the tasvideos method, but it would be even worse for SDA because at least people making TAS's have the tools and inclination to use the first version usually. Not listing collections is definitely the right thing. Who is going to look under PS2 for Genesis games like Ristar?
[/quote]
I think it's recognized more as part of the SNES collection in the states because it was not released in the USA on NES.

[quote="Enhasa"]
This doesn't apply to mistakes like Zenic [u][i]mentioned[/i][/u](done before I joined), which are the very rare case. In fact, I can't think of another one right now.
[/quote]
Fixed (at least I hope you don't think I'm a mistake.  ;) LOL)

[quote="Enhasa"]
I don't agree with #1/#3 above really at all, but the only reason why I would do it is because it's way easier and unambiguous, which means people will stop asking. The issue is, do people care about the systems a game is on, or a run? If someone loves the Genesis, would they want to see a run on Genesis Collection? I'm pretty sure it's yes. The other issue is, how important is it that someone looking for Ristar would be able to find it from browsing Genesis? This would have to be someone who never looks at the full list and never looks at the upcoming genre lists. I don't think this is a terribly big deal either I guess, but I guarantee lots of people will rightfully complain that it's stupid that they can't find FF7 on the PS1 page anymore.
[/quote]
I think it's about finding the easiest way for viewers to find runs without driving you (or the site maintainer if the job should change) insane.  Honestly, I think the average internet user is too quick to ask for help on the web if something takes even a small amount of effort to search for.

[quote="Enhasa"]
[quote="UltimateDarius"]
Also, I see what Ascetic Swordsman was talking about with the scrolling thing in the textbox...what the hell is the deal with that?
[/quote]
I have no idea what you're talking about. Did you post this in the correct thread? I don't see "Ascetic" or "textbox" in the last three pages here.
[/quote]
He's talking about when modifying posts that the scroll bar goes to the middle of the box while typing even after scrolling down to the bottom.  I think it's a browser issue because I don't notice it happening on IE 7.  This basically means they have to type blindly, then scroll down to see what they typed.  I don't remember the thread AS mentioned it.

Enhasa

2009-05-19 12:57:32 pm

everybody wanna tell you the meaning of music

Quote from ZenicReverie:

I think it's recognized more as part of the SNES collection in the states because it was not released in the USA on NES.

That's no excuse, and even less of an excuse now that many, many runners and viewers aren't American. Just a warning, I will be changing all release dates to original release dates, instead of the bastardized system we have now. Whenever the game was first released, on any platform, in any part of the world, that's what the date will be.

Quote from ZenicReverie:

I think it's about finding the easiest way for viewers to find runs without driving you (or the site maintainer if the job should change) insane. Honestly, I think the average internet user is too quick to ask for help on the web if something takes even a small amount of effort to search for.

We should have no organization, just the search box. Wink

PS this is actually not that bad an idea, not that it would actually happen...

Quote from Enhasa:

He's talking about when modifying posts that the scroll bar goes to the middle of the box while typing even after scrolling down to the bottom. I think it's a browser issue because I don't notice it happening on IE 7. This basically means they have to type blindly, then scroll down to see what they typed. I don't remember the thread AS mentioned it.

Hmm, never seen anything like that. Does it happen in IE 6 or something else like Firefox? If it's IE 6, it's beyond repair. BTW I did fix the issue a long time ago (all smf boards have this problem) where vertical scroll bars appear all the time for no reason, like when you're replying or something. It's theoretically possible it could be related, but I doubt it, because scroll bars in viewing threads are a completely different page than scroll bars in making a post.

[quote="ZenicReverie"]
I think it's recognized more as part of the SNES collection in the states because it was not released in the USA on NES.
[/quote]
That's no excuse, and even less of an excuse now that many, many runners and viewers aren't American. Just a warning, I will be changing all release dates to original release dates, instead of the bastardized system we have now. Whenever the game was first released, on any platform, in any part of the world, that's what the date will be.

[quote="ZenicReverie"]
I think it's about finding the easiest way for viewers to find runs without driving you (or the site maintainer if the job should change) insane.  Honestly, I think the average internet user is too quick to ask for help on the web if something takes even a small amount of effort to search for.[/quote]
We should have no organization, just the search box. ;) PS this is actually not that bad an idea, not that it would actually happen...

[quote="Enhasa"]
He's talking about when modifying posts that the scroll bar goes to the middle of the box while typing even after scrolling down to the bottom.  I think it's a browser issue because I don't notice it happening on IE 7.  This basically means they have to type blindly, then scroll down to see what they typed.  I don't remember the thread AS mentioned it.
[/quote]
Hmm, never seen anything like that. Does it happen in IE 6 or something else like Firefox? If it's IE 6, it's beyond repair. BTW I did fix the issue a long time ago (all smf boards have this problem) where vertical scroll bars appear all the time for no reason, like when you're replying or something. It's theoretically possible it could be related, but I doubt it, because scroll bars in viewing threads are a completely different page than scroll bars in making a post.

ExplodingCabbage

2009-05-19 01:04:14 pm

Quote from Enhasa:

Quote from ExplodingCabbage:

I'm confused by what Mike's options mean / most of the discussion about the game lists. But isn't the best solution that every game appears in the game list for every system it was ever released on?

Even if that was done with no effort (with a lot of finagling you could constantly poll wikipedia or gamefaqs but that doesn't cover all games) and even if that was easily definable, no.

Why not? Surely the only reason anyone would ever use the system lists is if they were a devotee of a particular console and wanted to see runs of games they know? And hang on, I just looked at the lists and isn't that how it works currently? :S I mean, there's stuff like Doom appearing in the PC, SNES, Jaguar, Saturn and PS1 lists even though it's only got runs on PC and that was the original release platform. I'm so confused.

ZenicReverie

2009-05-19 01:25:24 pm

Waiting hurts my soul...

I meant the part about listing it under SNES to be taken as American's wouldn't think to look for Lost Levels under NES, especially those that haven't researched the game to find out it was actually smb 2 in Japan. If you mean we shouldn't cater to those people, I'm fine with that.

I actually have never used the release date sort; I guess it's interesting for some to watch the runs in order of the games release, but not for me. So, I really don't have an opinion about changing that.

I have used the console sorts before to watch all the runs on a particular system, so I'm sure there are other people that enjoy the same with the current system.

VorpalEdge

Edit history:

VorpalEdge: 2009-05-19 03:28:51 pm

2009-05-19 03:23:02 pm

welcome to the machine

Quote from Enhasa:

LOL Maur, I don't even care about run time or year either.

Man, I forgot those two sort options even existed. Shows how much I value them, I guess.

Also: the intelligent search field is a great idea, and I think it and the full game list are the permanent solutions to this problem. No, seriously. The games list has two functions:

1. To enable people to find a specific game
2. To enable people to browse and find stuff they're not specifically looking for

The search field fulfills the former better than anything else could, and the full game list fulfills the latter. I mean, sure, I guess you could still have sort by system/year/etc if you wanted, but keeping those around would be for kicks and not much else.

andrewg

Edit history:

andrewg: 2009-05-19 11:08:41 pm

2009-05-19 10:56:46 pm

Hi! I'm andrewg!

Quote from Enhasa:

Quote from mikwuyma:

Quote from andrewg:

Enhasa, isn't this following the current way we list the games?

http://speeddemosarchive.com/MarioLostLevels.html

Why isn't the Lost Levels listed under the SNES list? There is SNES run on the site as well as the NES version.

Oh yeah, that was the reason why I mentioned SNES Lost Levels in the first place. Turns out I had a point after all. Tongue

Because Lost Levels is originally a NES game. Mario All-Stars is a collection and we don't list collections. Remember, current system means the system listings are for the games, not the runs. You know, I really do think this is for the better. I've always hated the tasvideos method, but it would be even worse for SDA because at least people making TAS's have the tools and inclination to use the first version usually. Not listing collections is definitely the right thing. Who is going to look under PS2 for Genesis games like Ristar?

Enhasa I'm curious of something. Say I did a speedrun of sonic 1 on the Xbox version, it would get listed under xbox and genesis correct? If someone then obsoleted my run with a genesis run, would the xbox listing of the game be removed? Or would it just get be listed under genesis?

The problem I have is that the Lost Levels SNES is not an exact remake of the NES version. I feel it should be listed separately from the NES run.

If a game isn't an EXACT remake, should it have it's own listing?

Wait, so why is FF7 listed under PC?

Also, Marble Madness is originally an arcade game right? heh, I don't get it. Tongue

[quote="Enhasa"]

[quote="mikwuyma"]
[quote="andrewg"]
Enhasa, isn't this following the current way we list the games?

http://speeddemosarchive.com/MarioLostLevels.html

Why isn't the Lost Levels listed under the SNES list? There is SNES run on the site as well as the NES version.
[/quote]

Oh yeah, that was the reason why I mentioned SNES Lost Levels in the first place. Turns out I had a point after all. :P
[/quote]
Because Lost Levels is originally a NES game. Mario All-Stars is a collection and we don't list collections. Remember, current system means the system listings are for the games, not the runs. You know, I really do think this is for the better. I've always hated the tasvideos method, but it would be even worse for SDA because at least people making TAS's have the tools and inclination to use the first version usually. Not listing collections is definitely the right thing. Who is going to look under PS2 for Genesis games like Ristar?

[/quote]

Enhasa I'm curious of something. Say I did a speedrun of sonic 1 on the Xbox version, it would get listed under xbox and genesis correct? If someone then obsoleted my run with a genesis run, would the xbox listing of the game be removed? Or would it just get be listed under genesis?

The problem I have is that the Lost Levels SNES is not an exact remake of the NES version. I feel it should be listed separately from the NES run.

If a game isn't an EXACT remake, should it have it's own listing?

Wait, so why is FF7 listed under PC?

Also, Marble Madness is originally an arcade game right? heh, I don't get it.  :P

Vugmer

Edit history:

Vugmer: 2009-05-20 12:18:57 am

2009-05-19 11:52:01 pm

Cigar Man

Here's what I'd like to see if anyone cares.

A run should be listed only under the system on which it was run. So if a run was done on the SNES, then the run wouldn't be listed under Genesis, even if a Genesis version of the game exists.

Scepheo

2009-05-20 01:55:19 am

I have to agree with andrewg, if there is a difference in the gameplay between Lost Levels for the NES and Lost Levels for the SNES, they should be listed separately. Because basically, they're two different games.

And I actually like the full/system-sorted game list. I have a PS2 with a crapload of games. When I want to see which of those games have a speedrun (just to watch, or to see if I could obsolete a run, or do a run that hasn't been done yet) I'm gonna browse the PS2-games list. I do not want to type the title of every game into a search bar and wait for the search results, and if the game has a run, click the link to see how fast that run is (search results don't list times). It'd take me at least 2 hours doing that, whilst simply sorting the game list allows me to do it within 5 minutes.

Enhasa

2009-05-20 02:29:56 pm

everybody wanna tell you the meaning of music

Quote from ExplodingCabbage:

Why not? Surely the only reason anyone would ever use the system lists is if they were a devotee of a particular console and wanted to see runs of games they know? And hang on, I just looked at the lists and isn't that how it works currently? :S I mean, there's stuff like Doom appearing in the PC, SNES, Jaguar, Saturn and PS1 lists even though it's only got runs on PC and that was the original release platform. I'm so confused.

It's actually really simple, but given that I have to explain it, so it's only really simple after you know it, I guess not. It's just initial release and ports. This is why a current dual 360/PS3 game is listed as both, and why FF1 would only be listed under NES. FF1 has been ported/remaked to hell but they were all after the fact. This is why Doom's original ports are listed but not say the XBLA port. The rationale is obvious. By the time we get a run for a game, all the initial ports will already be out there or at least coming. We don't want to have to continuously check back for every single game in the entire game list, to add new remakes.

FUCK YOU SQUARE

The fact that generally these old systems like MSX are PC's (all PC's are currently lumped under PC, blame Apple for the idea that a Mac is not a PC) is a godsend and a half.

Anyway like I said, we would never be able to automate listing all systems because Wikipedia doesn't cover all games. Also they aren't exact and this is tough to define, and Wikipedia people make mistakes and typos. But even if these weren't issues, the fact of the matter is that should we add all the systems for random ports like Vectrex even though we don't have any runs on them and maybe never even will? I think more people would complain that the system list is being crowded with "fake" stuff like Vectrex and that we are obviously doing this to pad our list and make it look like we have more than we have, and that is stupid and gay, than Vectrex enthusiasts would complain that we aren't listing it even though we have no runs. That's what I mean by no.

Quote from VorpalEdge:

Also: the intelligent search field is a great idea, and I think it and the full game list are the permanent solutions to this problem. No, seriously. The games list has two functions:

1. To enable people to find a specific game
2. To enable people to browse and find stuff they're not specifically looking for

We already have an intelligent (google) search box. It's right there on the gamelist page, but I don't blame you, probably everyone overlooks it. Typing "blah site:speeddemosarchive.com" into google is already better than what anyone does right now. Personally though, and I am probably the only one, when I want to look at a page I just type its URL because I know them all. Lips Sealed

Like speeddemosarchive.com/CobraTriangle.html, and I only have to type out the Cobra Triangle part because the sda part is permanently in the browser. Otherwise from the main page I do l i [enter] g [enter] beginning of game name [enter]. Takes like 1-2 secs.

People like to browse subsets of "all games" though. That's what system and genre lists and such would be for. BTW Kibbo is a much better example than vgmr, lol, he'll play any game (The Last Remnant, Devil May Cry 4, etc) if it comes out on PC, and no game that doesn't. Tongue

Quote from andrewg:

Enhasa I'm curious of something. Say I did a speedrun of sonic 1 on the Xbox version, it would get listed under xbox and genesis correct? If someone then obsoleted my run with a genesis run, would the xbox listing of the game be removed? Or would it just get be listed under genesis?

No, once again, the system listings are currently for games and not runs. It doesn't matter if you do the Genesis Sonic 1 run on a Genesis, Xbox, or futuristic 2150 space technology, it's a Genesis game so it's always listed under just Genesis. If someone runs SMS Sonic 1, that gets its own page, because that is a different game with different stages.

Quote from Scepheo:

I have to agree with andrewg, if there is a difference in the gameplay between Lost Levels for the NES and Lost Levels for the SNES, they should be listed separately. Because basically, they're two different games.

And I actually like the full/system-sorted game list. I have a PS2 with a crapload of games. When I want to see which of those games have a speedrun (just to watch, or to see if I could obsolete a run, or do a run that hasn't been done yet) I'm gonna browse the PS2-games list. I do not want to type the title of every game into a search bar and wait for the search results, and if the game has a run, click the link to see how fast that run is (search results don't list times). It'd take me at least 2 hours doing that, whilst simply sorting the game list allows me to do it within 5 minutes.

But what if you have a PS2 game that is multiplat? There are a ton, and the gameplay difference between them is almost always greater than the Lost Levels NES/SNES difference. Example: Difference between Wii Okami and PS2 Okami (factoid: Okami is the only game where we've added another system after the fact, because we already had a run but the Wii port only came out a year later than PS2 in PAL regions so it's counted... ~year or two is the cutoff) is greater than LL NES/SNES due to Wiimote controls, loading times, and other stuff. You certainly consider it to be a PS2 game, but if there was only a Wii Okami run and you browsed by PS2, would you want to see it? If the answer is no, that's cool, but if the answer is yes I would suggest that maybe you didn't really consider this.

[hr]

I put this at the bottom to see if people will read all the way, lol. I said this last night on IRC, but I've pretty much decided that we will go with #1/#3 for four reasons:

1) feedback in this thread (esp since andrewg and vgmr are I think representative of typical viewers who would want to sort by system, and if they don't mind that a run of an NES game on a GC collection is listed under GC, that's really the only hangup)
2) it's sooooooo much easier (see Vectrex bit above), this way we don't even have to bother researching systems and such
3) there will be absolutely no ambiguities so we don't have people asking why x isn't on y, and we also don't have to make any judgments about if such and such remake is "different enough"
4) the current system (that a 360/PS3 game is listed under both, but won't be listed under PS5 when a remake comes out) is apparently really confusing, judging by this thread

I expect a lot of people will be really angry with this decision after the fact, but screw them. They should have posted. Wink

[quote="ExplodingCabbage"]
Why not? Surely the only reason anyone would ever use the system lists is if they were a devotee of a particular console and wanted to see runs of games they know? And hang on, I just looked at the lists and isn't that how it works currently? :S I mean, there's stuff like Doom appearing in the PC, SNES, Jaguar, Saturn and PS1 lists even though it's only got runs on PC and that was the original release platform. I'm so confused.
[/quote]
It's actually really simple, but given that I have to explain it, so it's only really simple after you know it, I guess not. It's just initial release and ports. This is why a current dual 360/PS3 game is listed as both, and why FF1 would only be listed under NES. FF1 has been ported/remaked to hell but they were all after the fact. This is why Doom's original ports are listed but not say the XBLA port. The rationale is obvious. By the time we get a run for a game, all the initial ports will already be out there or at least coming. We don't want to have to continuously check back for every single game in the entire game list, to add new remakes. [spoiler]FUCK YOU SQUARE[/spoiler] The fact that generally these old systems like MSX are PC's (all PC's are currently lumped under PC, blame Apple for the idea that a Mac is not a PC) is a godsend and a half.

Anyway like I said, we would never be able to automate listing all systems because Wikipedia doesn't cover all games. Also they aren't exact and this is tough to define, and Wikipedia people make mistakes and typos. But even if these weren't issues, the fact of the matter is that should we add all the systems for random ports like Vectrex even though we don't have any runs on them and maybe never even will? I think more people would complain that the system list is being crowded with "fake" stuff like Vectrex and that we are obviously doing this to pad our list and make it look like we have more than we have, and that is stupid and gay, than Vectrex enthusiasts would complain that we aren't listing it even though we have no runs. That's what I mean by no.

[quote="VorpalEdge"]
Also: the intelligent search field is a great idea, and I think it and the full game list are the permanent solutions to this problem.  No, seriously.  The games list has two functions:

1. To enable people to find a specific game
2. To enable people to browse and find stuff they're not specifically looking for
[/quote]
We already have an intelligent (google) search box. It's right there on the gamelist page, but I don't blame you, probably everyone overlooks it. Typing "blah site:speeddemosarchive.com" into google is already better than what anyone does right now. Personally though, and I am probably the only one, when I want to look at a page I just type its URL because I know them all. :-X Like speeddemosarchive.com/CobraTriangle.html, and I only have to type out the Cobra Triangle part because the sda part is permanently in the browser. Otherwise from the main page I do l i [enter] g [enter] beginning of game name [enter]. Takes like 1-2 secs.

People like to browse subsets of "all games" though. That's what system and genre lists and such would be for. BTW Kibbo is a much better example than vgmr, lol, he'll play any game (The Last Remnant, Devil May Cry 4, etc) if it comes out on PC, and no game that doesn't. :P

[quote="andrewg"]
Enhasa I'm curious of something. Say I did a speedrun of sonic 1 on the Xbox version, it would get listed under xbox and genesis correct? If someone then obsoleted my run with a genesis run, would the xbox listing of the game be removed? Or would it just get be listed under genesis?[/quote]
No, once again, the system listings are currently for games and not runs. It doesn't matter if you do the Genesis Sonic 1 run on a Genesis, Xbox, or futuristic 2150 space technology, it's a Genesis game so it's always listed under just Genesis. If someone runs SMS Sonic 1, that gets its own page, because that is a different game with different stages.

[quote="Scepheo"]
I have to agree with andrewg, if there is a difference in the gameplay between Lost Levels for the NES and Lost Levels for the SNES, they should be listed separately. Because basically, they're two different games.

And I actually like the full/system-sorted game list. I have a PS2 with a crapload of games. When I want to see which of those games have a speedrun (just to watch, or to see if I could obsolete a run, or do a run that hasn't been done yet) I'm gonna browse the PS2-games list. I do not want to type the title of every game into a search bar and wait for the search results, and if the game has a run, click the link to see how fast that run is (search results don't list times). It'd take me at least 2 hours doing that, whilst simply sorting the game list allows me to do it within 5 minutes.
[/quote]
But what if you have a PS2 game that is multiplat? There are a ton, and the gameplay difference between them is almost always greater than the Lost Levels NES/SNES difference. Example: Difference between Wii Okami and PS2 Okami (factoid: Okami is the only game where we've added another system after the fact, because we already had a run but the Wii port only came out a year later than PS2 in PAL regions so it's counted... ~year or two is the cutoff) is greater than LL NES/SNES due to Wiimote controls, loading times, and other stuff. [i]You[/i] certainly consider it to be a PS2 game, but if there was only a Wii Okami run and you browsed by PS2, would you want to see it? If the answer is no, that's cool, but if the answer is yes I would suggest that maybe you didn't really consider this.

[hr]

I put this at the bottom to see if people will read all the way, lol. I said this last night on IRC, but I've pretty much decided that we will go with #1/#3 for four reasons:

1) feedback in this thread (esp since andrewg and vgmr are I think representative of typical viewers who would want to sort by system, and if they don't mind that a run of an NES game on a GC collection is listed under GC, that's really the only hangup)
2) it's sooooooo much easier (see Vectrex bit above), this way we don't even have to bother researching systems and such
3) there will be absolutely no ambiguities so we don't have people asking why x isn't on y, and we also don't have to make any judgments about if such and such remake is "different enough"
4) the current system (that a 360/PS3 game is listed under both, but won't be listed under PS5 when a remake comes out) is apparently really confusing, judging by this thread

I expect a lot of people will be really angry with this decision after the fact, but screw them. They should have posted. ;)

ExplodingCabbage

2009-05-21 06:06:38 am

Okay thanks for the explanation Enhasa.

I'd say stick with the current system, but improvements I'd like to see would be:

* When e.g. browsing the PS2 game list, when I see GTA3, which has (for now) a PS2 run and a PC run on the site, it should show the PS2 time because that's what I'm probably interested in if I'm in the PS2 list. It's kind of lame if I want to see a PS2 run, think 'sweet, GTA3 in an hour and quarter', and click to find actually the PS2 run is half an hour longer than that. (This is even more important when you have games that have been massively changed between release systems, but that's a separate issue - I'd say these should probably often have separate game pages.)
* If I'm browsing a system list and seeing games that have runs not performed on that system, it should say in brackets afterwards '(run on SYSTEM X)' or '(runs on System X and System Y)'.

Also, I noticed recently that lots of game pages don't actually say what system the run was done on; a huge oversight?

Okay thanks for the explanation Enhasa.

I'd say stick with the current system, but improvements I'd like to see would be:

* When e.g. browsing the PS2 game list, when I see GTA3, which has (for now) a PS2 run and a PC run on the site, it should show the PS2 time because that's what I'm probably interested in if I'm in the PS2 list. It's kind of lame if I want to see a PS2 run, think 'sweet, GTA3 in an hour and quarter', and click to find actually the PS2 run is half an hour longer than that. (This is even more important when you have games that have been massively changed between release systems, but that's a separate issue - I'd say these should probably often have separate game pages.)
* If I'm browsing a system list and seeing games that have runs not performed on that system, it should say in brackets afterwards '(run on SYSTEM X)' or '(runs on System X and System Y)'.

Also, I noticed recently that lots of game pages don't actually say what system the run was done on; a huge oversight?

Vugmer

Edit history:

Vugmer: 2009-05-21 06:30:08 am

2009-05-21 06:17:53 am

Cigar Man

Quote from ExplodingCabbage:

Also, I noticed recently that lots of game pages don't actually say what system the run was done on; a huge oversight?

Yeah, sometimes the only way I can find out what system a run was done on is to ask on IRC. I'd rather see that information on the game page.

Enhasa

2009-05-24 12:06:57 am

everybody wanna tell you the meaning of music

EC: Those issues you brought up are strikes against the current system and can't be fixed. If the game itself has a time, it only makes sense for that game to know its best time. It doesn't matter if the PS2 list or PC list asks for the game's best time, it will give the PC time. Short answer: think about implementation. Any way of doing either of those points would be hacky.

Game pages never say the system unless there are multiple runs and it matters. Yeah, I bet Radix would have done it differently given today's situation, but at the beginning all the games were either Quake, Metroid Prime, or N64. Wink

BTW, the system listings is one of the things I'm most dreading. I'm going to have to go back and manually figure out for every single run.

X

2009-05-29 01:25:00 pm

destroy them with lazers

I wouldn't mind helping you out with that ^

Scepheo

2009-05-29 03:01:46 pm

Implementation? Make constants for each console, then make an array containing the time for each console for each game. So instead of, say, GTA3 having:

time = "1:16:12";

it'd have:

time[pc] = "1:16:12";
time[ps2] = "1:43:40";

Sorting the game page by platform (example; nes) would then simply be a matter of checking for each game whether the variable time[nes] exists.

Juice

2009-06-01 03:25:32 pm

[quote=SDA May 31st Update]Although, the exact same sentiment is held for his single-segment 100% Easy 2:34:15 with deaths, what Justin calls his "miracle run." The SDA: where miraculous happens.[/quote]

Don't you mean "The SDA: where miracles happen."?

Scepheo

2009-06-01 04:48:39 pm

Quote from Juice:

[quote=SDA May 31st Update]Although, the exact same sentiment is held for his single-segment 100% Easy 2:34:15 with deaths, what Justin calls his "miracle run." The SDA: where miraculous happens.

Don't you mean "The SDA: where miracles happen."?
[/quote]
Either that or he's lacking a "the". ("The SDA: where the miraculous happens.")