Jump to content

DarkeSword   Administrators 🎮

  • Posts

    9,510
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    180

Posts posted by DarkeSword

  1. 1 hour ago, NIJITADIA said:

    Anyway, I noticed we are using invision community software here!   If the reason for removing signatures was due to bad/unwanted external links or images, then it is probably possible to write a plugin to check the content of a signature before it can be saved, and not allow it to be saved if it contains a URL to an image that is externally hosted (while still allowing external links to artists websites, etc)

    This is not the reason. The reason is primarily for UI/UX reasons.

  2. 2 hours ago, Meteo Xavier said:

    Sentiment concur'd. It's like, what, did you think that wasn't going to happen? What planet do you live on?

    Annnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnd here comes that new warning point...

    I'm not surprised that it happened. I'm just clarifying what this thread is for. People were getting off-track by debating the decision itself.

    I live on this planet. I'm not clueless. I've been a member of these forums for a long time and I know how people are going to react to the decisions that we make. I'm a moderator and if I see the discussion veer off-topic, like it did here, I'm going to make a post to course-correct.

    Your snark is neither warranted, appreciated, nor funny. If you don't have a useful suggestion, please refrain from posting in this thread. Thanks.

  3. Folks, we're not bringing back signatures. Not as they were originally implemented, not with us hosting images as opposed to linking offsite images, not as text-only.

    This is a done deal. This thread is not to discuss whether or not we should bring back signatures. This thread is for people to suggest other ways we can provide avenues for self-promo.

  4. 6 hours ago, Shadowe said:

     

    I've been around OCR since the logo was blue and I've got to be honest, I think you're being misled by the same UsErExPeRiEnCe clique that's behind most horrible UI decisions that actual users utterly despise. With social media and tech being the way it is today we're seeing more than ever an extreme gulf between what "experts" and self proclaimed thought leaders say customers and users want and the reality. You see this everywhere from phones to computers to pop culture, just compare the "critic" score to the user score on almost any major mainstream release on rotten tomatoes for the past decade.

    Wow.

  5. As indicated in the announcement at the top of the forums, signatures have been disabled. This thread is for constructive feedback about what we can do to fill the void with regards to self-promotion.

    Please be aware that djpretzel is working on revisions to the forum theme that will more clearly delineate where one person's post ends and another's begins. As always, OC ReMix is a WIP.

    Thanks.

  6. It's pleasant but it honestly gets kind of boring without any of the melody. Feels like it's relying the gated synth pattern for the first half, which is arguably less interesting than actually just...using the melody from the source. The arrangement clocks in at just under 3 minutes and I honestly feel like it's just one big extended intro that never pays off. The production and sounds are nice but ultimately the arrangement is half-baked; needs more time in the oven. NO (resub)

  7. A little repetitive, but I don't think the arrangement is so long that it's a deal breaker.

    The arpeggio is pushed too far forward for the entire track, though. It's cutting through everything. When melodic lines come in, you have to shift focus away by lowering the volume, dropping an octave, changing it to a lighter instrument, etc.; there are plenty of techniques you can employ.

    Needs a second look. NO (resub)

     

  8. Not enough source usage IMO. The original sounds weird because of the portamento sine wave but it's actually a pretty straightforward source tune. This really goes off and does its own thing that sort of just sounds adjacent to the original. I hear bits of it here and there, but I think the approach is too much; too caught up in its own concept and not taking and presenting enough from the source tune.

    NO

  9. Overall this is a nice arrangement of a short source tune. The repetition doesn't bother me too much, but around halfway through I feel the itch for some variety.

    Deia's right about instruments sitting in the same space; playing with octaves might help.

    There's a lot of reverb in this track; I'm not sure if that's good or bad. Might want to adjust the wet/dry on individual instruments. The percussion feels a little boomy.

    I personally really like the ending.

    A good effort but I think this one needs a little more attention.

    NO (resub)

×
×
  • Create New...