90skidJohnny's Feed

90skidJohnny
08-23-2020 at 11:56 AM
11 Comments
Rate this Entry

Donkey Kong - Nes - Whats the difference?

I might be having a senior moment, but

On the records for Donkey Kong on NES - There are 2 tracks that I can't tell the difference of

1st is - NTSC - Points

2nd is - Donkey Kong - [NTSC] - High Score


Rules are the same for both, What am i missing here?

ThanksJJT_Defender thanked this post
LikesJJT_Defender liked this post
Comments
  1. sdwyer138's Avatar

    Looks the same to me. Unless I'm missing something, I would suggest the two tracks be merged.

    Thanks90skidJohnny thanked this post
    Likes90skidJohnny liked this post
  2. Snowflake's Avatar

    lol the original one let you do it on accident. so mind reading refs could look at two identifical submissoins and allow the one that pulled the tactics on accident while rejecting the ones that pulled the tactics on purpose.

    the new one allows the tactics for everyone, not just the people whos had their hearts read by refs and declared pure

  3. Snowflake's Avatar

    to be clear with my 'lol" i'm not joking, i'm just laughing at the circus that TG was pre-jace


  4. sdwyer138's Avatar

    Ah yes, I see it now. Though without your explanation, that is still hard to discern with how it is written. Seems like something that should be clarified in the track title.

  5. Snowflake's Avatar

    yeah, it should be "mind reading points" and "non mind reading points"

  6. Snowflake's Avatar

    dude look at the zelda second quest challenge rules excepr


    "This is the ONLY way its even possible". look i'm not denying it hard, but i love how whats impossible for them must be impossible for everyone. just tell us the rules, dont tell us how the reason you're allowing continues is because you need them so everyone else must do


    sorry guys, for nes alot of tracks really need recreation. totally circus on that platform.

    Likes90skidJohnny liked this post
  7. OriginalPSP's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by Snowflake

    to be clear with my 'lol" i'm not joking, i'm just laughing at the circus that TG was pre-jace



    I believe this rule was set up by Mr. Kelly R. Flewin, a referee that volunteered his services to Twin Galaxies for over a decade. He set up thousands and thousands of tracks here during his time and is one of the main reasons the NES infrastructure exists here. If TG kept track of which former staff members set up tracks I'm certain Kelly's contributions in that area would have him ranked above any currently ranking members there.

    I don't believe insulting his work is respectful to his contributions here nor relevant to the discussion.

    Going back in my memory a bit, this particular rule was put in place because questions about it were brought up, requiring a ruling. During that era, intentional use of any glitches were typically prohibited, but this one was unique since it could be done through the normal course of play. So that note was added to make it clear that a player wouldn't have to start all over again if they accidentally hit it.

    Having watched footage of someone intentionally using it versus normal gameplay... it's pretty obvious which is which, too.


  8. Snowflake's Avatar

    And I don’t think Zelda rules assuming just cause he can’t do it noome can is respectful

    fact is the rules are arrogant and incorrect and makes things like that make competition on nes less desirable

    sorry if it offends but not only am I stating my opinion but I’m factually stating the innacuracy of the rules as wElk

    thank you for your input and your outrage at wording is noted but I feel justified

  9. OriginalPSP's Avatar

    You are free to your opinion, of course. I just didn't and do not understand why it's necessary to disparage an entire era of TG and/or one of it's most prolific past contributors due to your disagreement. It is not constructive nor helpful.

    No offense was taken, no outrage exists, my statement was a mere statement of opinion. If you wish to add your own flavor that's outside of my control.

    For further context, few times would Kelly or any ref from that era put in a rule like that unilaterally. Odds are that it was discussed with several others first who provided their own input as well before a consensus was reached.

    That's how we did it back then.

  10. Snowflake's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by OriginalPSP

    You are free to your opinion, of course. I just didn't and do not understand why it's necessary to disparage an entire era of TG and/or one of it's most prolific past contributors due to your disagreement. It is not constructive nor helpful.

    No offense was taken, no outrage exists, my statement was a mere statement of opinion. If you wish to add your own flavor that's outside of my control.

    For further context, few times would Kelly or any ref from that era put in a rule like that unilaterally. Odds are that it was discussed with several others first who provided their own input as well before a consensus was reached.

    That's how we did it back then.


    ah thank you perhaps i misunderstood, often times calling something disrespectful comes with the implicagtion it shouldnt even be done, i'll gladly explain your follw ups

    i didnt know it was kelly, i said nothing about kelly i discussed the tracks for nintendo themselves. It is you who brought kellys name into this i am happy to discuss the end product. It is possible to criticze the product without attacking the creator. not just possible but yes i believe helpful and appropriate, you make a better product by pointing out the problems with the old one. if a creator wants to take criticisms of his creation personally, i can see that point of view, but i still distinguish between talking about the action and talking about the person who did the action.

    as you can see from this very thread at least 2 people couldnt understand the rule difference between the old mind reading track and the new one, so i dont understand your claim it wasn helpful when i was literally helping people explain not just the rules, but why new rules had to be created due to the problem.

    i fully understand "thats how we did it back then" and that this track alone was not unique which is why i pointed to other tracks and that yes, that sort of mess was very commonly done across the board back then. the fact the issue was so common and rampant and standard procedure doesnt make the issue disappear it just means it was an even bigger issue than a single track. people competing on nes need to understand this. the fact that "thats just how things were done" means its so widespread it really cant be ignored and thats why i feel its worth discussing such a widespread problem. if it was a one off it could be ignored, but precisely because it was standard procedure makes it necessary to adresss.

  11. Snowflake's Avatar

    disclaimer: i know i'm critical and prone to conspiracy theories. but i also think as i'm aware of that that i do try to look for evidence to see if i'm justified

    that said, i'm curious if you can explain why accidents were allowed on some tracks but not others. rather than have people read tone, i'm just gonna admit that yes you read me right and i have a critical suspicions from what appears to be a pattern but i wont state it, not just to be polite but because of course theres no conclusive proof. If there is some greater wisdom i'm missing, then this isnt sarcastic, i actually would like to learn. i still think some tracks need rewritten, but itd be easier for me to adjust my tone if i honestly had more positive beliefs. so sincerely asking this point (and hopefully more to follow if you're amenable) as to how TG decided when to accept accidents versus to dq thins even if on accident. Life force would be one such example of, if i'm undestanding correctly, a new rule being added to DQ accidents after someone accidentally missed the enemy in a submission


Join us