Sir_NutS

I prefer they keep releasing small info like this and keep important stuff like secret characters and stages as a secret (though releasing 1 or 2 more characters wouldn't hurt). I like it more when it's a surprise, that's one of the things that made smash bros and melee great, you were just playing, kicking some ass, and suddenly, bam, here comes a new challenger. I remember when this happened to me with captain falcon in the first smash, it was an awesome feeling. But yeah, the bitching won't stop around here, but I prefer it the way they have been doing this =).

not bad, not bad. I might do this, I like the melody.

Looking forwards to the next round, this one didn't connect with me.

they should include a super mario bros 2 indoor stage, attacking flying masks and all.

Delfino plaza looks nice.

Nah i think he's right. I guess that would balance things a bit, and maybe now those weapons won't do as much damage as before.

So final smash is a move that can be excecuted only once... Though I bet there will be modes in which you will fight in a arena where the final shmash item appears every 5 seconds . Can't wait.

deja vu! lol this thread is running around circles. I hope Nintendo releases substantive information before all fans go nuts.

I did like that this time the staff sat down with the comunnity to hear what we think before changing anything. And even if the decision taken about the discussed points is not what I would want, I would still be happy that the staff took us all in consideration. Kudos, and good luck with your last draft.

Maybe. I don't like too much the money idea since I do this competitions for fun and not to win, and pressuring myself to make it so I can win... doesn't leaves the bests results. But we'll see.

yes, and since there's ethical reprehensibility on both sides, what gives your side special treatment, or complete control over the decision? you did a lot of work to judge and post the song, and the artist did a lot of work as well in making his song to support this website that he considers worth of supporting. Nobody is earning money out of it here, so neither of the sides will get hurt on that. So why the closed-mindedness and the obvious bias towards the site? I think that in this situations both sides need to get a part of the damage, and in the case presented, OCR protects itself agaisnt all damage, leaving the artist without any weapon to justify or defend himself. I will sound repetitive but I find this anti-ethical, and even more seeing as there isn't any intention of proposing a better solution from the staff's side at the moment. All I see is "you're wrong, I'm completely right" Both sides, the artists and the website, are working together to fulfill the goals of this venture, which are clearly stated in the front page and I won't copy them again. In the case of a break between the parts, OCR is obviously going out of it clean, while the artist will just have to suck it up. If they are working together to fulfill the goal, and both get their own benefits from it, why the only one damaged when the deal is broken is the artist? could you please at least consider this, and think about an scenario where there is a conciliation (sp?) between the parts in the case of a breakup? That would make this document more "welcoming". Right now it makes OCR look like an entity that will "eat" your songs away instead of a welcoming community that will work together with you to fulfill its mission.

I was thinking that perhaps, in the case of remix removals, there could be a period of the year in which all remix removals requested/in queue are removed from torrents and the site. That way the staff will only have to mess around the torrents ad the database once a year, sort of a lockdown.

uuh.. braincell is talking about the same thing. o_0 though he added another issue that is the specific cases in which ocr will remove songs from the site, which is just fine as this is his site and as such he has the right to remove any song from it, if it clashes with his hosting policies/goals/terms of service/user conduct policies. Now if my own policies or plans as an artist clash with those of the website, I can't remove my songs from there? oh so it doesn't goes the same both ways? I would agree that in some producing/publishing deals you lose control over your songs, however, ocr/djp aren't making money out of this, they are posting the songs to fulfill the mision/vision of the website: "This website is dedicated to arranging video and computer game music. Our mission is to prove that this music is not disposable or merely background, but is as intricate, innovative, and lasting as any other form."

nice new item. I can see myself kamikazing into players with high damage after some of the sticky-bombed my ass. Fun times.

You seem to don't get our point, as we aren't stupid enough to realize that a song that had some time up at ocr has been downloaded everywhere already by thousand of people. That is not the point, the point is about rights. Does the fact that you've stated give ocr, or any other entity, the right to hold my music and distribute it, even if I don't want to be part of that community/entity or as braincell stated, I don't want my image attached to that anymore? Besides, keeping the song would mean even MORE people everyday will download the song with the OCRemix label on it which is what, in the first place, an artist wouldn't want. The point here is not what you think the artist is thinking when he asks for removal. It's not if he'll beg you to posts his songs again up in the site. It's about the right of the creator of a piece of art to have complete control of it's use. As i said, sorry but I still remain oppossed to this policy, it's contradictive and antiethical.

Meh, I'm a (somewhat) active remixer in the community, and my issue is not something that I will apply to myself, as I highly doubt I would remove any of my songs after being a ocr member since almost it's beginnings. However I can see this as a point that could easily bring issues in the future, and that given the new official status of the term of use, could be troublesome to handle for david later. and DragonFireKai, I stated that because I see that there's an attitude of "none of the points given are valid, shoo", when I haven't seen any valid counterpoints to these statements. anyways, good luck with this, as I said, I don't think this will be an issue for me and won't determine my further support for ocr but I can see this as a weak point in the document.

I'm going to have to oppose. I said this in the other thread and I'll say it again. The artists are the sole owners of the rights to their work, and for that, they decide where it should be distributed and who should have it. By telling the artist you won't remove his mix from the website you're telling him that you own the rights to distribute his work, and that he has no right to stop the distribution of his work wherever and whenever they want. I think compy and specially coop have put up some valid points to prove a valid scenario of a remix removal could be presented. I think you're basing this, as I said in the other thread, in guessing that no one would want his mix removed permanently. Coop gave some goosd scenarios and I bet that some others that no one has thought of could be presented in the future, so I think the right policy here would be to accept the removal requests, and do not accept back the removed remixes. EDIT: Also if we have to explain our opposing vote, why no one has to explain their accept vote and counter the sticking points? bias much?

woah, that's one heck of a list of composers. I mean, even Yuzo Koshiro is there... This could be, as the website states, a historic moment in video game music (as geeky as that sounds). Nice fucking work nintendo.

People who send updates to their remixes never remove it beforehand, that's kinda pointless. Everybody who submits updated versions contacts the staff and then they evaluate the new version and decide if it's worth to substitute the old one for the updated version.

Thanks for the aclaration, then it's just a change of words there to make the thing more clear. I also agree with the "once it's gone, it's gone" position. The other alternatives are too conflictive and guess based.

I just saw the email today, and here are my opinions: I agree with most said in the draft, however: "OverClocked ReMix reserves the right to deny continued usage of OverClocked ReMixes in any works." this, as AD said, implies ownership over the remixes submitted by the artists, thus transfering the rights of distribution to OCRemix, which is not right imho. I think that maybe the staff meant that they can deny the use of "OCRemix" and "Overclocked Remix" in the filename or tags for any works in which the remix is being used and that is against OCRemix's policies. You can't deny distribution without ownership, and OCRemix is not in any way owner of our remixes. Also, my congratulations to the staff for giving the chance to the community and people involved with OCRemix to voice the opinions BEFORE decisions are taken. I think it gives the whole thing more of a concensus feel, and a community sense, so kudos on that. My objection stands though.

Yes. It's worth it though, the new system is the win.

holy shit... a FFIV remake in 3d.. that just confirms to me that V and VI will be on our way eventually. Damn, and I thought I'd never get a DS. I guess now it's the time to grab one. Cecil, here we go.

Nice work cyan. See you all in the next comp! (hopefully)

when is this over? I started something a few days ago...