Geoffrey Taucer

Holy shit, dude. Also, don't worry, we'll get you a physical album. It'd be a real dick move on our part to have you do the art and not give you a copy.

And the winner is..........?

Agreed completely. And the Mario games (and the DKCs, to some extent) did an excellent job of this. Once you learned your way around the levels, speedrunning them became quite fun.

Might want to hold off on counting the chickens there, Wes....

And no mention of the soundtrack?

I'm with JK on this one; the physics should be ironed out before level design is finished (or even seriously started), so that the levels can be designed to suit the physics. A lot of the SNES games did this really well, and Mario World jumps to mind as a game that was particularly meticulous about this. This is (or should be) even more crucial in a game like sonic, which relies so much more heavily on the ins and outs of the game's physics for things like loops, quarter pipes, and so on. It could still be a decent game, but for a game like this to live up to it's full potential, it seems to me that the physics should be perfected before the level design gets too far along, but what I've seen so far suggests that this isn't necessarily the case. As I've said, I'll still give the game a chance when it comes out, but this video has not made me any more optimistic.

But there appears to already be some pretty extensively finished level design, and in a sonic game, level design is (or should be) heavily built around the physics of the game. Nevertheless, this game looks like it will, at the very least, be worth a try.

Why lookie thar, moar blue in the tracklist

Here are the chords (remember, it's in DADGAD tuning) 0x0200 0x0000 (repeat x 6) 000200 5x0000 (repeat x 2) 000200 4x0000 5x0000 000200 5x0000 x02202 x24x00 4x0x00 5x0x00 000200 x24x00 4x0x00 5x0000 x24x00 4x0x00 5x0x00 000200 x24x00 5x0000 x02202 The fingering is all really simple, played finger style, and the lead is played on the bottom two strings. It gets a little more complicated the second time through, where the guitar plays the bass notes as well, but I don't have the guitar playing the lead in that section (though it is doable).

Must.....not......join.......another.......project....... ..... GAH! OK, I'LL DO IT. Sign me up for the prelude.

The source ranks among my all-time favorite VG tracks, and you've certainly done it justice. Nice work!

What? Oh, the exercise. Yeah, that's pretty nice, too.

DAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYUM!

Good point, and one I want to emphasize: people of ALL LEVELS of fitness are welcome to participate here.

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tv/TED-India-Pranav-Mistry/videoshow_ted/5231080.cms Holy shit

For those requesting videos: Wasn't my best meet, but should give you an idea of where I'm at overall. (also, if you listen to the very beginning, you can hear somebody in the background saying "hey, check out this vault." That's .I don't have a current rings strength video, but hopefully I'll be able to get one soon.

You don't need a lot of fancy equipment for a good workout. I have a full-body workout that I do at home 3 times a week that uses nothing but a pull-up bar and a pair of parrallets (though event these are unnecessary; everything I use them for could be done simply on the floor, it's just a bit harder on the wrists that way). I've been meaning to film and post it -- perhaps I'll have enough motivation to actually get to that now. Considering my background, it will come as no surprise to anybody that I'm a HUGE fan of bodyweight exercises, especially those which allow for adjustments to leverage to increase or decrease the intensity of the exercise. If anybody has questions regarding these (and I'll post a few examples later) I'll be happy to address them. The biggest thing I can say regarding any strength building exercise: the quality of each repetition is MUCH MORE IMPORTANT than the quantity of repetitions. It's always better to do a low number with correct form than it is to sacrifice form in order to reach higher numbers.

Really? This is the opposite of what I've heard, though as I said, this is not my area of expertise. As I said, my expertise is in building strength, not in burning fat. You may be right to some extent, but I can honestly say that I know a LOT of non-gymnasts who have used gymnastics-based workouts to build strength and it worked great for them. Though I will openly admit that my expertise is in a very narrow, very specific area of general fitness. Opinions of other experts are welcome.

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. It depends on just how genetically fucked you are. I've seen some pretty ripped gymnasts with pretty chubby parents before.

It's not that intensity DOESN'T matter, it's just that duration matters MORE. (as I understand it anyway. Let me be clear: my expertise is in building strength, not in burning fat) Genetics may not be on your side here, but I suspect this can be overcome if you're determined enough.

Ok, time to post my own goals. I had to take most of last season off from training rings due to a shoulder injury. I am taking this season off from training floor and vault due to an ankle injury. So I have two goals First, I want to get back to the point where I can do all four major rings strength holds (iron cross, planche, maltese, and inverted cross). Before I got injured, I could do all four reasonably well, though not perfectly. Right now my cross is the best it's ever been, but my planche is inconsistent, and my invert and maltese are nonexistant. Second, after I get surgery on my ankle, I want to build my leg and angle strength back up to where it was last july, when I competed at national qualifiers, so I can tumble and vault again. Ideally, I'd like to get all the way back to being able to throw my vault (kazamatsu double front, never been done by ANYBODY except me) in competition again -- this may well take over a year to do, though. My relatively long-term (and also very much long-shot) goal is to qualify for the 2012 Olympic trials on Floor, Vault, and possibly Rings. This goal is an EXTREME long-shot, but it seems just plausible enough to be worth a try.

A portion of this may be genetic, though it's impossible for me to say for any particular person to what extent this is the case. Mind discussing the specifics of your diet? That may allow us to help you a bit more.

A lot of people think of building muscle and burning fat as the same thing, but they aren't; as my expertise is in building strength, I'm probably not the best person to answer this, but I can give you a general answer. The best way to burn fat is to find some activity that gets your heartrate up and keeps it there for an extended period. Running (or even walking), swimming, biking, and the like. My understanding is that the important thing for this is not so much intensity as duration (EDIT: though gibbo dissagrees with me on this) As far as diet, I have no idea.