Speed Demos Archive
|Platform Tour v1.0.4 with WAVs (VB.NET 2003)||452 MB||Windows XP, Vista, 7||Uses DirectX 9||RAM usage: 80MB||Project Page|
|Platform Tour v1.0.4 (VB.NET 2003)||6.61 MB||Windows XP, Vista, 7||Uses DirectX 9||RAM usage: 80MB||Project Page|
|Power II: The Island Demo (VB.NET 2003)||3.41 MB||Windows XP, Vista, 7||Uses DirectX 9||RAM usage: 40MB||Project Page|
|Blocks: Extended Renderer Version (VB.NET 2003)||137 KB||Windows XP, Vista, 7||No DirectX||RAM usage: 20MB||Project Page|
|Quadrill v1.1.2 (VB.NET 2003)||1.57 MB||Windows XP, Vista, 7||Uses DirectX 9||RAM usage: 70MB||Project Page|
|Quadrill v2.1.2 (VB.NET 2003)||1.42 MB||Windows XP, Vista, 7||Uses DirectX 9||RAM usage: 80MB||Project Page|
|Quadrill v3.1.1 (VB.NET 2003)||1.17 MB||Windows XP, Vista, 7||Uses DirectX 9||RAM usage: 120MB||Project Page|
|Quadrill v4.1.1 (VB.NET 2003)||2.88 MB||Windows XP, Vista, 7||Uses DirectX 9||RAM usage: 180MB||Project Page|
|Quadrill 4 Full (VB6)||4.52 MB||Windows XP||Uses DirectX 7||RAM usage: 80MB||Project Page|
|Quadrill 4 Demo (VB6)||1.41 MB||Windows XP||Uses DirectX 7||RAM usage: 80MB||Project Page|
|Jump-Cross (VB.NET 2003)||109 KB||Windows XP, Vista, 7||No DirectX||RAM usage: 20MB||Project Page|
|Quadrill 3 full version (VB6)||530 KB||Windows XP||Uses DirectX 7||RAM usage: 50MB||Project Page|
Dec 7 2017, 10:01
A while back, Games Done Quick had a marathon called "Harvey Relief Done Quick" to raise funds for Hurricane Harvey relief efforts in Houston. The event raised over $227,000 dollars for the charity organization Houston Food Bank. Among one of my favorite things, however, was the break in pattern from previous Games Done Quick events. Normally, there's Awesome Games Done Quick (AGDQ) and Summer Games Done Quick (SGDQ), but this new marathon is called Harvey Relief Done Quick (HRDQ). The difference in pattern caught a few people off-guard, as you can see by doing a Google search for "HGDQ2017". HGDQ is not a thing (Harvey Games Done Quick?), and since Hurricane Harvey is, thankfully, not a recurring event, the year is also redundant. Thus, the only thing you *should* be seeing is "HRDQ".
Another thing with Harvey Relief Done Quick is that the event was set up very quickly. It started with, I assume, discussion between organizers behind the scenes and then a quick poll. Side note: Polls such as this one are biased from the start, considering the options. Honestly, who would say no to some extra entertainment in the name of charity with no burden of participation? If the downsides of each option aren't readily evident, there's no incentive for people to disagree. It's along the same vein of questions that I've seen on YouTube videos and such.
"Should I hold an extra event on the 3rd?" has no downsides mentioned. The question itself is the same as asking, "Should I do something fun with no implications on the future?".
Instead of asking, "Do you want me to get a special item and come back to defeat this monster?", you might as well ask, "Should I finish playing the game or do you want me to not make any meaningful progress?"
Instead of asking, "Do I continue trying to do this trick or do you want to see me do a different level?", you should ask, "Do I make myself annoyed or do you want to see me do something exciting?"
It's a line of questioning that's designed to look like it gets viewer/community feedback, but is worded such that people who pick the alternative are either contrary or making a large assumption about the consequences.
"But Iceplug, why is there a 12% selection rate for the 'No' option on this poll?" I can think of a few reasons. Firstly, an old idea from previous GDQ events is, "Why aren't there more GDQ events every year?", and the answer to it is usually something along the lines of, "If there are more events, it will reduce the effectiveness of the marathon/people will get tired of GDQs faster/the organizers won't be as focused on the individual marathons as much as they are now". Neither of these options have been observed previously and probably won't be observed this year (but we will see), so all of these rules are speculation. A simpler answer would probably just be that the organizers don't want to, since it requires signifcant resources and manpower to run the two marathons now. This could be an assumption made by those who clicked "No".
Secondly, for whatever reason, GDQ seems to have a bunch of conspiracy theories surrounding the charities, the organizers, the events, and other ideas that aren't substantive enough for me to investigate, but may still cause others to click "No".
Thirdly, the short turnaround time for the marathon may have fallen into people's normal work schedule and they wouldn't be able to set aside the time or money to donate. After all, the poll does ask if you would be willing to "support/donate", and, to some extent, support and donate mean the same thing. (Technically, donations imply support, but you can support without donating by retweeting and advertising the event to others.)
That's all the time I have now. Next time, I'm going to talk about this submission form.
Nov 28 2017, 9:45
Black Friday Deals
Hopefully, you all had a safe Black Friday. I actually went to Wal-Mart during Black Friday (mostly to spectate), but I got some great deals!
Percentages were slashed off of EVERYTHING! Let me chronicle my journey.
12% off normal traffic speeds... always a plus!
60% off the number of free parking spaces - what a bargain! Only took twice as long to find a park.
Bought a 50-cent Honey Bun for 0% off! No, it's not a Honey Bun named after 50-cent; it's a Honey Bun that 50-cent was named after.
Yes, I went for a handful of snacks for the weekend, but...
44% off of a "Fresh" Salad (the "fresh by" date was Black Friday)
48% off of "Fresh" Fruit (same deal, except I'm pretty sure I'm not gonna be able to eat all this fruit and the salad in one day)
Maybe I should pour the fruit into the salad and make a fruit salad.
75% off of the normal grocery section traffic, though! $_$ !
Number of people using self-checkout SLASHED IN HALF... well, not physically slashed in half... please understand I meant that the number was slashed in half.
Patience of other customers in the store and in the parking lot - 10 to 50% off!
Being considerate of other customers in the store - 20 - 30% off!
Walking speed of this ONE COUPLE I WAS WALKING BEHIND FOR ALMOST A MINUTE - 40% off!
Clearance to get around this ONE COUPLE I WAS WALKING BEHIND FOR ALMOST A MINUTE - 80 to 90% off!
(Seriously, not only were they walking slow, but apparently they both just got back from doing deadlifts or something and were walking with their shoulders and arms outstretched so far that you couldn't get around them)
(And I'm sitting behind them like "Do you mind not acting as swollen as you think you are?")
So that's all of the big Black Friday deals that I found.
I saved over a thousand dollars this trip!
Hopefully yours was as successful!
Day after Black Friday Addendum: I saw that slow walking couple again on Saturday, but they were elsewhere in the store.
By the way, going to Wal-Mart on the Saturday after Black Friday is like walking in a dreamland and highly recommended, especially if you're not expecting to buy anything.
Nov 18 2017, 8:03
Here Comes The Hot Stepper
Here comes the hot stepper, Somari
It's the superspeed gangster, Somari
Pick up the rings in a-de area, Somari
Softlocking like that, Somari
--- -- 2017, 13:19
A while back (early September), I wrote an article about the journalist having difficulty in Cuphead, from which I went on to talk about the skills assumed by video game purchasers and players about the person reviewing the game, the stance about making a tutorial that is acceptable to all or indicative of the general skill level of the game, and about assumptions that video game players make at their baseline level.
I'd like to revisit the idea that video game developers posed about making the tutorial for Cuphead more straightforward (a.k.a. easier). The issue is that, back in September, I surmised that the tutorial's difficulty would be indicative of a game that assumes the player is experienced or at least somewhat familiar with the genre (Cuphead is a game reminiscent of Contra and Mega Man; a side-scrolling shooter or, as the game calls it and to my own chagrin, a run-and-gun). Now that Cuphead has been released, it turns out that Cuphead is a "fairly difficult" game. Personally, I feel that Cuphead is "difficult by today's standards", but I'd hesitate to say that I call it difficult.
The first thing I thought back to was the tutorial comment. If the tutorial were made easier to encourage the player not to "give up at the tutorial and refund the game right away", then what would be of the final game? It would certainly be a sharp constrasting difficulty between the tutorial and the game, leaving the player feeling that the tutorial was not adequate in preparing for the game, when, in fact, the tutorial did not prepare the player for the pace of the game. Next is the idea that, if the tutorial were made easier, would the entire game be made easier? Certainly, that seems to be the next logical step if the tutorial isn't "straightforward" (easy) enough. This almost certainly starts going against the aim of the developers. Yet, there is still support for it.
Statements along the lines of "developers develop games to be experienced and yet hide the experience behind a wall of difficulty" and "there's nothing wrong with making an easier difficulty setting for the game" speak to people's desires that Cuphead be an easier game to play. However, this is a slippery slope. Who gets to make the decision that a certain game needs to be easier? Who defines when a game is too difficult? Will this eventually devolve into large bundles of games released in the upcoming years that the average gamer nowadays will find not particularly challenging? In fact, there doesn't even seem to be a consistent measurement for personal levels of difficulty. Certainly, difficulty is subjective, but that doesn't mean that it is undescribable. Personally, my stance on difficulty is that it is a frequency of failure in combination with the penalty for failure. This is much in line with the concept of risk: probability of failure in combination with the penalty of failure.
In addition, do difficulty games *need* a setting for easier difficulty just so that the less-capable gamer can experience it? I would argue that difficult games, in and of themselves, are already closing off their audience to the most capable. Again, as mentioned last time, the developers of difficult games and their tutorials "know their audience". Is there truly a need for a development team with a completed game to hold off their release so that a six-year-old or other non-proficient person can beat it on an easier difficulty?
The next question: does it tarnish your experience to complete a game heralded as being difficult that is easily beaten by a sizable portion of the population? Is it acceptable to feel good about yourself for doing something that someone else is incapable of doing? Personally, I think so. After all, not everyone can be a university professor, CEO of a million-dollar corporation, or a professional football player. Everyone is trying to find their niche in life and it's only a problem if the situation is basic. For instance, it's acceptable to reject someone for not having a clean bill of health if they're going to a space mission, but it's not acceptable to reject someone for not having a clean bill of health if they're going to vote. Video game difficulties are like this: it's okay to limit the audience, because everyone is not required to play the video game and the video game's sales will, more than likely, be reduced to account for their smaller audience. It's selfish to then try to tarnish the game for having a smaller audience when they're also having to deal with a smaller number of sales. (Part of this also comes with the idea that video game sales are very random, with greatly developed games getting smaller sales numbers in comparison to games such as Goat Simulator)
Then, how far does this idea go? What if Cuphead was instead, a game about divisive concepts presented from a destructive point-of-view? We've certainly seen games like this (being released and generating lots of media attention) make considerable sales figures. Is there an obligation to tarnish a game for spreading a bad message? It seems like a tricky idea, but I'll assert it this way: games about divisive concepts (that is, a game where the controversy surrounds non-game elements) are, by the topics that they bring up, accepting and requesting the discussion and resultant fallout, whereas games that remove part of their audience by having a higher difficulty do not request a corresponding fallout.
Certainly, the discussion can still be had. However, talking poorly about a game being too difficult is a concept that I don't understand. I liken it to students that think math is terrible just because they're terrible at it: it doesn't change the fact that math has led to numerous inventions and other quality-of-life improvements. Video games aren't math, yet every thing in the world is not for everyone.
Sep 18 2017, 12:53
AGDQ Registration Math
September 9th, AGDQ 2018 registration opened and within roughly 24 hours, registration closed. I registered the morning of the 10th under the assumption that registration would not fill up overnight (this assumption is based on an observed tendency for video gamers and associated groups to stay up until 2am - 3am and then tucker out), despite numerous Twitter posts expressing the usual expected surprise that registration is filling up faster than expected (SGDQ 2017 earlier this year filled its registration slots in about eight days while AGDQ 2017 filled registration in just over 2 months).
After registering and due to the exorbitant amount of tweets detailing the number of slots available for registration, I decided to estimate how long until registration would remain open. It was pretty clear at that point that registration would be full before September 11th and, instead of just following what everyone else was doing (posting the number of tweets), I wanted to post this estimate.
So, up to this point I had observed tweets at certain times mentioning the number of slots available or, slightly less desirable, the percentage of slots available. I compiled these into a short little table (along with the information available when I registered):
|Registration opened at 9:30pm (0)|
|370/1850 slots were taken at 9:51pm yesterday (1)|
|615/1850 slots were taken at 10:31pm yesterday (2)|
|925/1850 slots were taken at 11:44pm yesterday (3)|
|1207/1850 slots were taken at 7:17am today (4)|
Sep 9 2017, 8:40
Here's a video games journalist playing a videogame very poorly
The game is Cuphead, to be specific, and the game journalist did not ultimately turn this into a review. Thank goodness. Online reaction to this video was swift, questioning this guy's credentials as a video game reviewer and even as someone who is just in video games as business. The problem is that this is just a person who plays video games, is playing a genre that they admit as their own weakpoint, and has a lot of learning to do to play this game. He just *happens* to be a video game reviewer.
The first concern that is brought up is from people who fear that there doesn't seem to be that many credentials to being a video game reviewer. All you have to do is like video games and have good writing skills and you get the job. I admittedly don't know much about what it is to be part of a video game journalism team, but I am more inclined to believe that video games journalists have to meet similar standards that regular journalists have to meet: fact-checking, how to present information, final check by some editor or something, etc. The point is that I don't know how well video game journalists are required to know their games. Apparently, the public shares this uncertainty and yet it's very difficult to then provide a wholly encompassing set of requirements of the ability of a journalist to have in order to review a game.
The fallout, of course, begins with sweeping generalizations, which, in addition to raising the issue, throw sweeping generalizations at video game journalism as a whole, which certainly does not help the situation. "How can we trust videogame reviewers if they play like this?" The problem with sweeping generalizations is that there are people who actually believe them at face value: there are people who hear it and then immediately conclude that every single person in an 86-member review company does reviews like this. Whereas level-headed individuals would then rightfully question the generalization, "Surely, every journalist doesn't do this", there's that small impressionable mind that goes right along with it and suddenly, their trust in journalism is shook. For this point, people (journalists, developers, and others) have to then defend the rest of videogame journalism to those gullible minds. No, every journalist is not secretly trash at their game. Most journalists have been playing videogames for as long, if not longer, than the audience that they entertain.
But then, the question remains: "How many are bad at the games they play?" "How many times has a review blasted a game for having terrible controls when the reviewer was just new to an established genre?" "How many times has a game been punished for a bland storyline when the player didn't bother to pay attention to it?" "How many games have been described as being cheaply difficult when the reviewer failed to pay attention to the warning signs?" Ultimately, we may never know. Reviewers are just like people: they have faults and generally address the ones that they know about. In addition, everyone has opinions. Everyone can let their audience know about their opinion. The important part is that not every opinion is valuable and it's up to the audience to determine if an opinion is valuable. If I don't trust a certain reviewer's rigor in analyzing a game, I ignore their review. I even ignore reviews of reviewers that I am familiar with if it seems like they did not perform to my satisfaction level.
It's easy to then turn around and condemn the entire reading audience, "You can't just ignore a reviewer just because they said that a game is too hard." Of course not, since that brings me back to the paragraph before this. It's important that both the journalist and the reader understand both of their roles in the review and what's expected of each other.
The other side of the issue is videogame developers encountering someone who plays your game like this. While some developers accept that some people will play their game as if they haven't played the game before, some defended the journalist by arguing that the tutorial is not clear enough. "The tutorial expects the player to think for themselves and combine two ideas." "The player is taught to jump over the box instead of onto the box." This is one of the difficult problems that developers have to face and it ultimately comes down to knowing your audience. A person who argued that the tutorial was too difficult noted that if you have a young child (or an adult that is unfamiliar with the genre, in this case), requiring too much of them in the tutorial can just cause them to quit and refund the product. On the other side of things, players that are more well-versed in 2D shooting platformers would, perhaps, have no difficulty with the tutorial and would be more turned off by a more "holding your hands" tutorial. Of course, with two different takes on this, naturally, both sides of the development philosophy then argue that their side is correct. Regardless, as a developer, you should know which audience your game is geared to. If it is geared towards newer players, then your tutorial must be, as previously mentioned, airtight. Every obstacle must test a specific skill set, and every skill must be thoroughly described. If it is geared towards the intermediate-level player, then your tutorial only needs to cover controls and non-traditional ideals (which is what I would assert that the tutorial is doing here). You don't need to teach how to jump over things in this style; simply saying that A is jump and presenting a box to jump over is adequate. Things like airdash are then alluded to in the tutorial. A sufficiently knowledgable player could figure out how to do it just by knowing which buttons do things.
Of course, you could argue that there is a way to do tutorials that both beginners will understand and experts won't be dismayed by. A person who is reasonably good at the game could just skip them (if available, and it should be, in my opinion) or go through them with great ease, quickly getting into the actual game and faster than a normal player. How high does the skill ceiling go? Even Super Meat Boy isn't afraid of killing you with hard tricks in the first world. Wouldn't you expect that the difficulty of the tutorial translates into the ultimate difficulty of the game?
The other thing to note about this video: this video is easily people that you know that have played games before. In the case of the reviewer, it's important for the reviewer to get the trust of their audience. For a consumer, there is usually no audience and thus there is no necessity to win their trust. Usually. The exception, of course, is consumers that have audience. These are the people who play games and upload them to their YouTube channel or play them on Twitch. What does this mean? Well, again, everyone is a person and is going to mess something up at some time. You expect them to learn the game from the ground up, just like a normal player does. You expect them to make gross mistakes due to forgetting important information and having to backtrack to get it. All of these are normal experiences that any videogame player gets. The exception, of course, is when the player confuses of their simple shortcomings with shortcomings of the game. Both of these ideas exist and both perpetuate each other. A shortcoming of the game can cause the player to fall short. A player's shortcoming causes the game to appear offputting. Personally, I respect players a lot if they can admit their own shortcomings, but too frequently, I see players that insist that every difficulty that they encounter within the game is a fault of the game itself. It's strange, I don't understand it, and, with the exception of the game controls, it's not like the viewing audience can't tell if the problem is due to the game. I frequently see things like, "The game didn't explain this very clearly", when I'm watching them read it. So, when I see this tutorial, I also see some YouTuber struggling to jump up to this platform, ranting about anything in the world, riling themselves up, and then blasting the game for having a difficult section.
It's like you expect to run into a difficult obstacle and then get surprised that you ran into it.
"But certainly, all YouTubers / Twitch streamers don't do this." Of course not. Those YouTubers / Twitch streamers that have earned my trust by acknowledging their shortcomings receive more value in their assessment of the videogame that they're playing. The bottom line is that trust has to be earned from all parties involved. Generalizing the entirety of some group or asserting your opinion as the only valid viewpoint devalues your opinion immediately. Honesty and relatability help build trust between the parties involved.
Side note: remember that the videogame journalist that played the above video did not write a review for the game.
I often see people ridicule the idea that "videogame journalists should be good at their games". The idea is that a videogame journalist puts themselves in a position to accurately experience the game. There's nothing preventing people from watching a videogame and then writing a review about it despite never actually playing the game. The problem is the value that their review brings. If they play videogames like a seven-year-old, I will value their opinion commensurate with their demonstrated ability, and I don't take videogame recommendations or value opinions from seven-year-olds.
"Do all sports reporters need to be professional athletes?" - I suppose this made sense in someone's mind without thinking it through. Sports reporters are reporting to an audience of television watchers, not professional athletes. Sports reporters are only required to anticipate the thoughts of people who like watching sports, not just of those who participate in sports. Equivalently, video game journalists are not writing about games just for people who like to watch let's plays; they're writing for people who want to play them. Know your audience.
Aug 16 2017, 19:36
Testing PNG files.