Bracket 2 - Discussion

[Juub005]

kutimu's acapella songs are FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRR more energetic than caravan of love

and yes, I also stepped an acapella song before remember?

Yeah, Akira stepped a file called "Bongga Ka Day" by the Akafellas, and the song's a cover of a Philippine disco song...

As for "vocal percussion," uh, tell that to the 8 a cappella groups on my campus. There's not much practical reason to make that distinction.

[Wellian]

If your artwork isn't great, well who's fault is that? Those points are designated for a reason. To push you to make your creations better in every way so the community can have higher quality files.

I wasn't aiming the comment specifically or directly at you, because there are more than enough others both here and in other competitions I could pick on, but yes I was referring to one of two things you've said about peoples' artwork. I wanted to be general so not to as to pick on you personally.

(Note that although I refer to it as "my artwork" to make the grammar easier, I'm not going to confirm whether or not anyone has said negative stuff about my file at all - but I've had art criticisms often enough elsewhere to warrant venting my anger here and now.)

The simple fact of the matter is I for one do not and will not ever have the ability to produce banners of the outstanding quality of some other authors - I am not and will not ever be an artist. I do, however, do as much as I can to produce "competent" artwork, i.e. something that is clear and practical and not something that I made by mashing my face into the keyboard in Paint. Although I far from expect full marks for any of my banners and backgrounds - as there is a noticeable quality gap between the artists and what I produce - it does annoy me when artwork which I consider "competent" is severely downrated because it is simple just because the author does not have the capability to produce advanced stuff.

There's a distinct difference between incompetent or lazy artwork and genuine low-quality artwork - incompetent artwork needs deriding; low-quality artwork needs help. If somebody offers me advice on improving my art, I'm more than welcome to listen to it; simply saying my art is fail isn't exactly going to inspire me to improve - if anything it's going to inspire me to say stuff this and get somebody else to do it.

The system is also to blame - it's hardly a coincidence in that my highest positions in contests have come when artwork has carried minimal or no weight. Again, this is why this is Presentation and not Graphics. I regularly include doubles charts at DDRExtreme not only because I am completionist and like making doubles charts, but it also goes a small way for compensate for the natural loss of marks in art. Given how most people are providing their public reviews, I don't see how it can be fair that "artwork" can be rated at 40% when the hard chart is only 60% - there is no way that anyone can reasonably consider the hardest stepchart to be 1.5 times as important as the artwork. Even with an argument that "it attracts the player to a song", I would counter it with a claim that in that case the sample start should for an even higher proportion as it is even more important for attracting a player, an idea that is simply ludicrous.

Simply slating people outright for inexperience for lack of ability - be it for artwork, syncing or charts - and then not being able to offer any advice for improvement - are just offering destructive criticism and far from helping people become better it simply puts them off. I like fighting against unwarranted destructive criticism - even if it's not against me - because when I'm in a bad mood I can be a complete shit.

[vjgyo]

I understand what you're saying about the graphics. Some people don't know how to utilize photo editing programs to the maximum while others know the programs inside and out. My banner and background were pretty lackluster compared to some of the other graphics in this competition but that was my choice.

IMO good graphics make the simfile more enjoyable. They are an important factor like it or not. When I did my public review, I tried to say that some of the graphics came off as if nobody spent time on them. What looks like it had more effort put into it: a gradient background with text or a busy background with relevant characters or objects with fitting text that has some bevel+emboss or other effects with the music artists' logo? Simple, quickly-made graphics can be a good thing but maybe when I played some songs, the simpicity rubbed me the wrong way.

Or if you're not good at making graphics, try to learn Photoshop/Paint Shop/whatever you use more. Ask other simfile creators for tips, tricks, and advice. Have a few friends critique your graphics to get a "yey" or "ney". Heck, check out an online tuturial -- I've looked at a few for Photoshop and Poser in the past and you'd be surprised what you can learn. You can't really use "I'm not good at making decent graphics" as an excuse, especially in a competition.

[ranatalus]

not everyone can just "learn" photoshop. some people are just naturally not good at art, and no matter how much they practice, won't get good at it.

I know a little more about photoshop than i used to, but I still can't come CLOSE to the people that just have a natural skill at it. I've gone through tutorials, i've practiced, and yes, my skills may have improved slightly, but i'm still far from resembling anything "good"

that goes for anything; people that are terrible at keeping a steady rhythm can try to improve it by playing more, or taking some kind of music class, but they still are likely not going to ever get as good as someone who is gifted at it

[BLueSS]

To the however many of you who enjoyed Dark Blue (the song), Jack's Mannequin's album is HIGHLY recommended. Dark Blue isn't even close to being the best song on the album (imo). Lyrical quality is higher and I don't know why this stuff hasn't been on the radio.

And if you like the sound of the album, Ronnie Day is a very similar artist that you'll probably like.

[TakeWalker]

To the however many of you who enjoyed Dark Blue (the song), Jack's Mannequin's album is HIGHLY recommended. Dark Blue isn't even close to being the best song on the album (imo). Lyrical quality is higher and I don't know why this stuff hasn't been on the radio.

I second this, and Dark Blue is one of the best songs on that album.

Furthermore, the JM guy was formerly in the band Something Corporate, which was also a piano-driven pop punk sound. Also worth checking out if you like DB.

[Sakura_Guy]

To the however many of you who enjoyed Dark Blue (the song), Jack's Mannequin's album is HIGHLY recommended. Dark Blue isn't even close to being the best song on the album (imo). Lyrical quality is higher and I don't know why this stuff hasn't been on the radio.

I second this, and Dark Blue is one of the best songs on that album.

Furthermore, the JM guy was formerly in the band Something Corporate, which was also a piano-driven pop punk sound. Also worth checking out if you like DB.

Thirded/ Jack's Mannequin is an awesome band. I also really like their song "The Mixed Tape" which is worth checking out.

[Uiru]

Would you rather play a good simfile with bad graphics, or a bad simfile with good graphics? This should illustrate how unimportant graphics are. An earlier poster was absolutely correct in saying that the preview track for the song is infinitely more important than the graphics for selecting a song and making it stand out, and we don't give points for the preview track as that would be insane.

Graphics should be mostly a technical score; something to the tune of:
-Are they there? (1)
-Correct size/dimensions (1)
-Artist name on banner/bg as required (1)
-Graphics are asthetically pleasing (2) <- allow your snooty nose-in-the-air pinky-raising expresso-drinking goatee-stroking Mac-using beret-wearing superego to run wild on this category!
-Graphics are intentionally offencive and/or distracting and/or detract from the experience (-1) <- Not "this took 2 minutes in MS Paint and oh my God I'm so offended I could die", I'm talking about things that actually hurt the brain (the black and white checkerboard from the last comp being a prime example). Simply looking like crap doesn't qualify for this penalty.

So, a standard graphic set from someone who has no artistic ability whatsoever yet who follows the rules is looking at, at worst, a 3/5, which is far better than the 0/4 some people are getting in their reviews now (which they shouldn't be getting in the first place in most cases). As for people putting in 400 hours in MS Paint instead? If it's so easy, they won't mind doing it for the extra 2 points. If there is any sizable emphasis on graphics over the actual notechart, then what the hell are we even doing here?

I also like the overflow idea (ie. 3 + 3 for a maximum of 4) because a perfect stepchart should be able to win perfect marks with L/S/H single charts only, and adequate graphics (not good). Anything else seems like a dilution of the original idea of this whole thing, at least to me.
~Uiru

[Raf]

Would you rather play a good simfile with bad graphics, or a bad simfile with good graphics?

I would keep the good graphics and redo the simfile myself :]

~Raf

[Juub005]

Graphics are important (however important, whatever), yet I don't see what the issue is we're having. As for the 40% presentation, that doesn't mean 40% graphics. It means 40% how you choose to present the file that accompanies your steps, AND whether the steps are so good that they knock you off your feet the way good graphics would! (which takes care of people who haven't been able to figure out their graphics programs or just don't have the money to buy them or the amorality to pirate them)

As for scoring graphics, obviously if they're not there it should be a 0 score. You should get at least some credit for having graphics, but very little just for the fact that they're there. This is the flaw with Uiru's (and the OSC5, I believe?) scoring system-- that too much of the score would come from satisfying requirements that were in the rules. In other words, I don't believe the graphics score should be a competition of following directions that are so easy to follow. And yes, that unfortunately means that the score should be based on aesthetic appeal almost entirely. A nice judge should be considerate of effort; however, there are some places where you can put in a lot of effort and just miss the point entirely, which would be a problem. Now, I haven't actually bothered to look at how Best-Mix judges are to grade graphics, though (as I've implied) I do know how public reviewers are to grade presentation. And geez, "allow your snooty nose-in-the-air pinky-raising expresso-drinking goatee-stroking Mac-using beret-wearing superego to run wild on this category!" is rather, uh, exaggerated and unkind prose. And finally, there has to be some competition over aesthetic appeal, or else there would be no way to significantly acknowledge the people that make quite fantastic graphics in the scoring, or, worse yet, little reason for competitors to bother in trying to improve their graphics ability if they could.

And it would be sensible for judges (as they have tended to do!!!) to make suggestions as to how the graphics could be improved.

[will-i-am]

I would keep the good graphics and redo the simfile myself :]

Your opinion obviously shows in your reviews.

[Uiru]

exaggerated and unkind prose

That's what I do. :D

Knowing how public reviewers are to grade presentation is an admirable feat. In a perfect world, such a skill would be able to be passed on to the public reviewers so that they could make use of it.

If improving graphical ability were something that was reasonable to expect people to do for a month-long competition where artistic ability isn't (shouldn't be) the focus, art school would vanish in a puff of redundancy. Some step creators are not artists, and judges are not selected based on their ability to critique art. What did everyone think of the essay writing challenge round? Are we to become cunning linguists in order to compete in stepchart competitions?

People either know how to do graphics and can do them reasonably quickly, or can labour at them for ages and still produce crap. If I were to display all the banners/bgs I've made, you would be unable to correctly predict which took 20 minutes and which took four hours. No reasonable person is going to say "that was a great stepfile, but the graphics suck so I'm never going to play it again", and thus their (un)importance should be reflected in the grading scale. Add in the issue with some people assuming presentation = graphics and you can see that less artistic chart writers are not getting a fair shake. There should be SOME reward for good graphics, but not to this degree (up to 40% is ridiculous).

Thus, a more technical grading scale for graphics would be more fair. The 'tilt' score from earlier competitions can be used to assign more points for better graphics, while a file with mediocre graphics might get praise for double charts or lyric files or something like that. Or, have graphics based on asthetic appeal, but have them worth less overall than, say, the Light chart, would also be fair. As it is, a Heavy chart with one arrow in it and spectacular graphics will recieve about the same score as a chart with a spectacular Heavy chart and crap graphics.
~Uiru

[Juub005]

Okay, you cannot go from this:

If improving graphical ability were something that was reasonable to expect people to do for a month-long competition where artistic ability isn't (shouldn't be) the focus, art school would vanish in a puff of redundancy. Some step creators are not artists, and judges are not selected based on their ability to critique art.

To this:

What did everyone think of the essay writing challenge round? Are we to become cunning linguists in order to compete in stepchart competitions?

Graphics are always a mandatory part of a simfile in competitions. You cannot be expected to write an essay for a simfile competition. On the other hand, you are expected to provide graphics. Therefore, it is reasonable that the selected judges should be able to grade these graphics. Also, you seem to assume that this is the only competition that will ever exist, which it's not. There should be a difference between your graphics from Tournamix 1 or whatever and what you entered here. Also, "art school would vanish in a puff of redundancy" - nice job again. It seems necessary to be a "cunning linguist" just to discuss how a simfile competition's grading scheme should work out. I mean, come on.

That being said-- I think BlueSS has posted about five times his explanation of presentation scoring, while some people are ignoring the subscoring altogether. But I think the best is being done so that those who aren't as skilled at making graphics don't get screwed.

[Uiru]

Graphics being required for a simfile competition is a convention, nothing more. It is 100% possible to have a simfile competition without them; it just likely hasn't or will ever be done. Hence, the essay reference isn't that farfetched. Remember, convention is why we are still using backgrounds and not stock stages as the games currently do (for better or for worse; different thread topic).

In the past two years, the only time I've even opened my Paint Shop Pro (6, I think?) is to save banners as .pngs and to throw together the very occasional image macro. Why would my skills have developed at all? I'm much too busy stomping arrows and composing epic lamentations on message boards to develop a talent I'd almost never use, if I even have the capacity for it in the first place. Perhaps more weight should be given to readmes? Though that would be hard to do in an anonymous competition. (With a little research, graphical style of both the amateur and professional can be deduced, so a truly anonymous contest would likely benefit from no graphics.)

The reasoning behind "presentation" as opposed to graphics has been posted a few times, and to be quite honest, I don't fully grasp the difference. I know there's supposed to be one, and I know lots of people are ignoring it- I hope the judges are more versed in this. I can either deduce it down to 'graphics' as everyone else has done, or 'extras' which I'm pretty sure has been stated as not being it so far. All I do know is that effectively, 40% of a public review's score is defaulting to graphics, and there are a fair number of 0/4 and 1/4 scores being tossed about with 'graphics' the only gripe. Again, Heavy chart with one arrow in it = crappy graphics, and that cannot possibly be right.
~Uiru

[CoreyBlaze]

To me, graphics are VERY important, however, it's perfectly understandable if you are good making charts, but not so at graphics. This is why in real dancing games, they have a group who works with steps, and another group to work exclusively with graphics. This means that you, as a simfile maker, must be both teams at once. I'm not saying that you have to be a great graphic artist in order to be a good simfile maker (it would make you more complete though!), but I think it's pretty clear when some graphic you create is absolute crap. When I do my graphics, I always have a goal in mind: they can't be horrible. If it looks horrible to me, it will look horrible to everybody else.

You might say, "but people have different tastes, you can like something that others might hate", but that's not true, there are basic guidelines to graphics creation that basically tell you how to NOT to make something horrible. This pretty much applies to stepchart creation too.