Least100Seraphs

With a bit of luck, maybe this will come full circle, and someone will submit a remix of the track, only to be told "Sorry, song doesn't exist, we just made it up to fuck with people."

What would be cool to see, would be a port+extras or remake of Secret of Mana, with wifi for multiplayer, bottom screen used to allow on-the-fly menu navigation so that the gameplay isnt broken up, and bug fixes for the various glitches in the game. What I'd love to see, though I don't know if the data is even still around, is for some of the cut content to be reinserted in the game. For those unaware, SoM was originally to be a SNES CD game, and when they put it on cart instead they had to cut content. Some sources have said up to 40% of the game's content was removed or edited in some way. At the very least, it'd be cool if they made the Lunar Palace a full dungeon (and maybe put in a chest and a boss that could drop the missing Glove and Axe Orbs).

If only we knew which person had been served. As far as I can tell, Dhsu is calling atma dumb because Dhsu could see the sarcasm and Hyperion couldn't. This chain of events baffles me.

Hyperion: Well, I'm confused now. Are you playing along with the joke, or are you genuine? For the record, I was being sarcastic in my post, as Chrono Trigger is one of the most highly rated (or over-rated, depending onwho you talk to) games of all time, and it holds the number 1 spot here at OCR for number of remixes. One in twenty mixes hosted here is a Chrono Trigger remix - it even beats out FF7, despite it recently having been given a 4-disc remix album treatment (with 3 and a half of those discs becoming OCR tracks).

This is good news. Hopefully this port will bring this niche title to a new audience, which with luck will translate into remixes for the site. It's about time we got a few tunes for this underappreciated game that is disappointingly under-represented at OCR.

I don't know if I'd call paying a monthly fee to be called a nigger over a laggy peer to peer connection "amazing online treatment", but hey. Horses for courses.

There's been mention of the choice of either remixed or original tracks as an option in the game - any idea if there will be an option to select which stages have remixed tracks play, and which have original tracks playing? As for the lyrical debate... one must remember that the people posting on this forum are but a subset of videogame music remix fans, who themselves are a subset of music fans and videogame fans. To call a song remixed by anyone here "crap" is silly, of course, but by the same token to think less of someone who would prefer to hear non-hip-hop, or non-techno, or non-whatever-other-genres-one-cares-to-name is equally foolish. Many of the songs on this site could quite easily replace their original versions in the games they're from, and most would agree that the replacement was superior - but part of the purpose of some of the other tracks here is to take that song out of the game and change it in ways so that it would quite simply no longer be suitable. Look to JJT's F-Zero piano pieces. They're (IMO) brilliant works, and to me they're infinitely superior to the original tracks. However, when I play F-Zero, I want to hear the originals, or perhaps I'd want to hear the guitar arrange versions instead. Of course, there are some who'd disagree, and would prefer the piano in the game. Similarly, much of BotA's soundtrack is urban in its design, and that's not everyone's favourite genre. Much like classical, it seems to divide people more than many other genres. Some of it won't fit in a 2D fighter like SF, KoF, GG, or the like. Some may think it an insult to tell a composer or musician that their music doesn't belong somewhere - but I believe it's equally insulting to tell them that their work is safe and inoffensive and nicely fall into the background of anything, anywhere. Jose should not feel offended that some believe his music, especially his lyrics, don't fit in SSF2THD, because I don't think he set out to make "Spitting is Narcissism" a mere subsitute for a CPS2/QSound bgm file.

Re: The Damned You're on the right track, but you've unfortunately thought things through one level too low. Everything you said is true, however it was actually Gamespot that masterminded this all along. Gamespot knew that if they canned the reviewer, that all you wrote would play out, and that although some would see through it all and know he was canned, most would be tricked by the double-bluff and think it was all Gertsman's scheme.

True. In this case, consolidating his weaknesses allows for a Scarfvile to take down 5 of his team members.

Your sig pic is of your team? Uh, mate, you've got a bit of an ice weakness there.

Hehe. A japanese friend of mine said that in KoF circles in Japan, each KoF is considered to have two versions of the boss: the normal boss or the generous boss. If you've beaten the game, it's because you fought the generous boss.

Ok, a lot's already been said... but hey, if 5 people name the same game, it's gotta be good, right? Anyways... River City Ransom is a must if you have a friend. This game is awesome. Metroid and Zelda are typical suggestions, but I say forget the first Zelda since its SNES sequel is infinity times awesomer. Instead, play Zelda 2: Adventure of Link. Rescue: The Embassy Mission(s) is incredibly awesome, as long as you can manage to abseil down the building without dying too much. Music is tops, also. One of the few NES games I'd really like to own, that I don't own. Joy Mech Fight is a great 2D fighter that puts many SNES StreetFighter clones to shame. It's a Japan only release, but I do believe translation patches are out there. Can't think of too much else at the moment, but I was trying to name some games that either aren't well known, or are overlooked for others in the series.

Modding a machine is done largely (almost solely, these days) for the purpose of piracy or cheating - and if you mod your machine then you are agreeing to the risks. It's not like MS has surprised or tricked you with their online service, either. They make it clear in the ToS that only unmodified machines are authorised to go on the Xbox Live service.

Ah, but by that definition, it couldn't be Ms. Pac-Man, for the only things indicating her to be female were 1) the Ms., and 2) the bow on her head.

While I can't provide the shooping skills, what about Shna Bubbles? Pour on the milk and hold them up to your ear to hear them go Cut, Sample and Loop!

Yeah, I'd have to agree with zircon. The fact that you can only listen to to each pair once makes it as much a short-term memory test as a tone-deafness test. I get the feeling that if I knew musical notation (as in, I could hear a tune and say "that's a, b, b, g, f flat, c flat, d sharp") that I'd do better on the test - which to me only reinforces the idea of it being a memory test.

Has an exact time been set? Stupid American timezones being 16 hours behind Australia... ... I mean, I love America and its FF7 OCremix album*! *please don't block my IP address**. **Until after I've downloaded the album.

Uh, I don't know if this is actually an OCR problem or if it's something external, but I think there are some problems with the 'Aplus' mirrors of the remixes. I was getting 404'ed on the new Jazz Jackrabbit 2 remix, so I checked the three mixes before that. Amanda's Tears (FF Adventure) was connecting to the Aplus mirrors fine, but the FFX and Contra mixes were 404ing. Again, I'm not sure if this is a problem with OCR, with Aplus, or me, or just crazy internet shenanigans, but I thought I should mention it.

It's a really minor thing, and someone else has probably picked up on it... But if you go to this link... http://www.ocremix.org/remix/OCR01588/ and on the right hand side, under "Remix Information", click the "Next" icon, you'll find it gives you a 404 page not found. I believe it's due to the fact that the link attached to the word "next" is http://www.ocremix.org/remix/OCr01589/ and as you can see, I believe the lower case r is causing all the trouble.

I'm not arguing that it should be changed. I see exactly why DJP wants it implemented, and I don't blame him for implementing it. I'm just saying that it is the clause most likely to dissuade someone from handing over their song, because it is the most likely to scare a contributor away. Of course I am aware that a mix can be pulled down at DJP's will, or if the remixer has a reason and DJP agrees with it. But the fact is that the remixer's opinion is void in this situation. If DJP wants to remove it, it's removed. If he doesn't, it isn't. Additionally, you say that there is provision for the remix to be removed if there is a legitimate reason - but that is not true. The legitimacy of the reason for a remixer wanting a mix pulled is completely irrelevant. The only deciding factor is whether or not DJP wants to remove it. Whether it's a legitimate cause or not, it's removed only at DJP's will. The concept of legitimacy only applies if there is implied good faith - and DJP has already said that he has no intention of assuming good faith in this clause. Edit: In response to DarkSworde's post: I think many people here already realise that - I certainly do. The concern here is that with the advent of this document, there is no obligation by OCR to remove a request, and no obligation to discuss such a request. If this was a website running on good faith, I'd have no concern - but as soon as legally binding documents come into being, my spidey sense tingles, and tells me to be very careful with what I sign and what I give up, because whatever the salesman says to me while I sign on the dotted line is irrelevant. Only the bit I'm signing has any weight behind it.

If there is no case in which you would remove a mix, then for the sake of clarity, you should stop beating around the bush in what is supposed to be a concise legal document, and simply say "Once submitted, your remix cannot be removed at your request." In response to JJT's "give us an a way in which DJP could screw us over", I was merely pointing out that while previously the idea of going on faith worked, that was because there was only the good faith to go on. Now that there's legally binding documents in place, DJP doesn't really have to worry about acting in good faith. I'm not saying he's going to turn into some sort of despot, but with the introduction of this document, he has the ability to act in a very different way. Put simply - while DJP is saying a lot in this thread, what he says isn't what you're signing. His talk of good faith and retaining the current community values is talk - nothing more, nothing less. I just want to stress a couple of things - firstly, I'm well aware of the fact that I am not a remixer, and that as such, I'm not important. Telling me I'm not important, or that my opinion is irrelevant or carries little-to-no weight, doesn't bother me. There's no need to remind me of this, whether as a believed legitimate reason, or simply as a point-scoring opportunity. Secondly, in light of the first point - part of the reason why I decided to post was because I am the most detatched from this agreement. I am not a remixer, and this document doesn't directly affect me. DJP can gain a lot from this document, but he can also lose out - there are already remixers who don't agree with this document, and this is despite them knowing DJP for a long time and having trust in him. There will be new remixers (there always are), and some of them won't submit work, because of the new contract. Remixers are also standing to gain and lose from this document. They gain a lot of protection and some promotion from this, but in return they give up the right to ever have their mix/es removed from this site, for any reason. I on the other hand, lose very little. We'll have some more people submitting, so I'll get a few more songs, if they are approved. We'll also see a few people stop submitting, so I might have to look at other websites. I don't have much to gain or lose from this, so I thought that my post might have the opportunity to provide some hopefully objective opinions that would be free of conflict-of-interest issues. Finally, I would prefer not to be written off as a doomsdayer, or dissenter of OCRemix. I love the site in its current and previous forms, and have enjoyed this place since the very old days - black and blue design, under 500 mixes, etc. I've never been able to contribute much back to the community I've loved so long... but I was hoping this could be one way in which I could give back to the community.

To the two above - I do understand the nature of the agreement. However, the removal refusal clause does affect the remixer's distribution rights, and he does give up distribution rights by agreeing to that clause - specifically he gives up the right to decide how his material is distributed by OCR, and for what time period. Now, it is true that this is somewhat of non-issue, because the policy clearly lays out answers to both question of how, and for how long. I'm certainly not saying such a clause cannot or should not be in the policy (I have gone into more detail regarding this in the discussion thread). I'm simply answering the question the poll asks. It asks "Would you submit a mix if these were the rules?" My answer is "No".

This first (long segment) is largely directed towards DJP - any reference to "you" is basically DJP", any reference to "us/we/me/our" is a member of the OCR community - predominantly current, former and possible future contributors. Unfortunately I believe that it is the very fact that you have not displayed the "good faith stuff" that is causing so many problems. Think of the "good faith stuff" as a clause in this contract (the term contract is a legally applicable one, as entering a contract is about the only legal way one can enforce a specific right such as the "removal refusal" while remaining merely a licensor in other aspects of the agreement). By displaying this contract without the Good Faith clause, you are asking people to sign off on a set of rules without allowing them opportunity to view all the rules to which they are agreeing. There is also a certain contradictory nature to some of this policy. You are laying out a policy so that rules are available to be viewed and acknowledged by all, so that previous unwritten rules, common sense and good faith are no longer relied upon - and yet at the same time you are incorporating new good faith rules into the policy that are, as yet, unwritten. If the intention of the policy is to remove ambiguous, easily misinterpreted rules of good faith and common sense, then it seems futiles to embed new rules of good faith within the document. Instead, it would be suggested by the nature of this policy's design - to create and commit concrete rules, rights and responsibilities - that anything written in this section is devoid of ambiguity which may allow for subjective interpretation of the agreement. Put simply, if you wish to make sure that everything in this policy is clearly stated and free from confusion or "good faith" concerns, then make that clear. A few times, when in defense of a certain clause or wording, you've said words to the effect of "Guys, trust me, I'm not going to screw you over." That's reassuring, but ultimately doesn't mean a lot, because it's not in the policy. If one day you did decide to screw us over, there's nothing we could do, because the contract we signed gave you permission to do that. I think one concern shared by some here is to do with that. If there is no need for you to have certain rights and powers, and if you would never exercise those rights and powers anyway, why do you want those rights and powers? Phew. Ok, this is just for general thread continuation. As for the "right to remove" being able to be in this agreement - it's doable. Most anything legal can be waived in a contract - which is what this agreement is. It is quite feasible for DJP to ask remixers to give him the specific right to refuse removal of submitted works for any reason, as long as it doesn't interfere with other "higher" laws. Being a contract, the remixer has 2 options - sign the contract or not sign it. Individual remixers can of course try to negotiate with DJP for a different contract, with that clause altered or removed, but he's under no obligation to remove it, just as the remixer is under no obligation to sign the contract. As for retroactive application of this contract, again, that's allowed as long as the remixer agrees to it. The remixer could choose to agree and have all earlier works fall under the new contract, or he could disagree, at which point the remixer and DJP could negotiate an alternate contractual arrangement. However, as I am sure DJP is quite aware, this contract cannot be enforced on remixers or remixes already on www.ocremix.org until he has spoken to said remixer of said remixes. In fact, until a remixer specifically agrees to the new policy, his or her works are by default under the old "unwritten" policy. So someone that doesn't like this new policy has nothing to fear - these rules aren't being forced upon them. DJP has talked of a grandfathering system being in place - it is already in place. The most important things to keep in mind within this entire debate are the following: 1. These rules are being put down not with the primary intention of controlling anyone, but with the primary intention of making the rules clear and acceessible, to make the system transparent, and to protect all parties, 2. These rules cannot be enforced upon existing remixers or existing works against their will, as such a thing is simply impossible, legally, and finally 3. both DJP and a remixer can prevent any future works from being encapsuled by this new policy by not submitting/accepting a remix. Put simply, you're not forced to agree to these terms, but DJP is not forced to accept yours either. If you can't reach a middle ground, then the song simply won't be hosted. Bleh. I typed far too much. My apologies to anyone who is teased at school/work tomorrow for having keyboard imprints in their forehead as a result of falling asleep reading what I've written.

Explanation of my no vote: as others have mentioned, the idea that an artist has to give up distribution rights for an indefinite period of time with no recourse to have it removed unless OCR's staff allows it is simply something I couldn't accept. And yes, I am aware that I am not a remixer with works hosted on OCR. I will say, however, that if this Content Policy was put in place, I would most likely not submit any works to OCR. As for the non-profit angle - it is precisely because OCR has no financial constraints regarding profit or revenue, that this "removal refusal" clause is so out of place (and IMO, out of the question). OCR is not a business with large amounts of money tied up in lucrative record labels, sponsorship and merchandising deals, or stockholders that require their quarterly dividends. OCR can't earn money from an artist's work, so they've no need to retain distribution rights, as it is, by definition, without value.

I'm not too concerned about the banning of guns. I'm fortunate enough not to live in the USA, nor in any war-torn area, so the chances of me being gunned down are remarkably slim. My only point was that there will be many people trying to use this to fuel their arguments for strict gun control in the USA, but that ultimately these arguments will be ignored. The USA loves its guns, and would not allow its government to have them taken away. The USA loves its guns, and though it knows that the price of such gun laws is thousands of firearms fatalities every year, it, will not allow the government to take those firearms away. Cultural climates are aptly named - they are long-term patterns that take time to move in, and time to move out. Isolated incidents such as these, as shocking as they are, are isolated, and the effect quickly wears off.