UEVM/Battle Commentary Video Rules Discussion

[daniu]

Hi all,
I thought it would be best to create its own thread for this; it is related to the new Unedited Video of the Month contest.
The purpose of this was supposed to cater "for those doing vids that demonstrate MP games and good strategy with commentaries", but the current rules don't exactly cover that properly.

I think the wording of the rules needs to be tweaked (my suggested rules didn't cover what you are saying properly, even though I intended it to allow for voice commentary...my bad)

I didn't mean to blame anybody really, I was just saying that most battle commentary videos would actually break the rules as they are.
So let me try to be constructive here.

Time Limit
With battle commentaries, it's quite hard to even edit them in a way as to get them into a single upload for YouTube (i.e., under 11:00 minutes).
In fact, the only vids under 5 minutes I am aware of are of Point_Man's two recent ones (one in his battle against a quitter and one featuring an early mass rout)
and some of mine (Benny Hillcamp, Fight Like an Egyptian and the latest one)... and two of those are basically music videos.
This is because battle commentaries don't take near the amount of work per video minute as it does for your artistic type stuff... in fact, the shorter you make them, the more time it takes!
I do see the point in the length limitation, but I would consider raising it to, say, 8 minutes (this is still going to be really hard to do for 2v2s or even 3v3s).
OTOH, come to think of it, with that limit in place, I can imagine some 1v1 commentary vids becoming better due to improved concisiveness

Commentary-specific Rules
As for additional rules, my approach would have been less technically and more content oriented.
I wouldn't even exclude additional music (saiedz for instance uses his to nice effect)... and since using mods is allowed, just use a music mod
Call the discipline "Tactics Demonstration Videos" or suchlike.
- the video's footage must be taken from a single battle (that was actually played, SP or MP doesn't matter IMHO).
- the video must display and explain tactical movements of units within the battle.
- the video must follow the battle from beginning to end and display the battle's outcome.

I think these should include most commentary and exclude most artistic videos.


I'm not sure who exactly has the authority to make or change those rules, but it's probably worthwhile discussing them.
Your turn

[MasterBigAb]

I don't agree with your rule suggestions !!!

I have to say ok the rules could be changed a bit, but there are some points i am totally against !!!
I agree that the length could be between 3 and 8 minutes, but you also have to take care that too long videos, especially unedited will probably not be very exciting and due to that more or less not be too much fun to watch (there are always exeptions of course)

I am totally against adding music, cause when you are allowed to add music, cut it, than go and take part in the votm competition, this is meant to make a nice video, without making it better with some added stuff...i hope Legio agrees with me on that sry (it's just my opinion as well)

where the footage is taken from, nobody can really proof, but i agree it should not be 4 minutes random scenes from random mods/battles etc...
i think it should still look like one battle, i don't care wether you have two or three replays to get all the scenes you want or not...

- the video must display and explain tactical movements of units within the battle.

a very big NO

This would make the competition just the way you like your vids, but therefore i think you could start a tactical or strategie guide or whatever you call it, don't force it on other people...
I really like your vid, but such a rule would really be way more strict than the existing ones !

- the video must follow the battle from beginning to end and display the battle's outcome.

again a very very big NO
This would also fit some kind of tactical guide and so on, but cutting is allowed, and in my eyes the only really important allowed tool !
As already said, too long vids are boring to watch etc.. yo you can cut out the for example 2 minutes of marching before your units meet at the battlefield, and the 3 minutes hunting the fleeing troops and some scenes between, which might be buggy or borring or what else...

I also hope Legio agrees on that, cause i don't want this to become tactical battle report replay vid competition what ever...

And btw.: i do not want to be offending nor anythign like that, but i simply totally disagree with that and think only minor changes like the length, and ok, to allow voice (like in your one) but beside that, i really hope there won't be any furter great changes !!!!!

[Nanny de Bodemloze]

Strangely, I actually think that it is possible to tweak the rules to accommodate both of your concerns. First, the rules should be as lean and open as possible, only placing restrictions where absolutely necessary...otherwise, we end up with a competition between only 2 or 3 people.

For UEVM, I like the idea of upping the time limit...you are correct, if the video is "unedited", it needs room to breathe time-wise.

Music...this is tough. Mods of course are allowed of course, and there are many mods that change the in-game music (its pretty easy to do it yourself)...so how can we deny someone the use of music? The current rules don't deny the use of music, they only prevent the use of non-in-game audio. So if someone changes their in-game music to System of a Down through a mod, aside but being a bit weird, we shouldn't disallow it.

Let's talk about the spirit of having this UEVM competition. I THINK it is in place to recognize the talent of video makers who are not doing any manipulation of the game's flow, look, and feel...no changing colour palettes, no adding sound effects that are not in-game, and creating an experience for the viewer that could be replicated by that viewer if they owned the same mods. I think this is a skill in itself and should be recognized as such (even though I have no interest in creating this type of vid myself). The bulk of the educational type videos would fall into this, although "audio commentary" would have to be allowed as an exception to the audio rule.

- the video's footage must be taken from a single battle (that was actually played, SP or MP doesn't matter IMHO).
- the video must display and explain tactical movements of units within the battle.
- the video must follow the battle from beginning to end and display the battle's outcome.

I understand where these are coming from, but they are too restrictive in my mind. These are components of a good instructional video. If someone's instructional vid doesn't have these components, simply don't vote for it is all I say. To create a separate "Tactics Demonstration Videos" category is interesting, and I would support it but for the fact that there simple are not enough people doing them to sustain a monthly competition, IMHO. I'd say leave it wide open, anything unedited, tweak the rules to allow for higher time limit (for UEVW only) and for author audio commentary, and then Bob's your uncle.

[daniu]

Hmmm, maybe I did have the wrong idea about what the UEVM was supposed to be about.
Now, I don't really see its point. Look at Ab's entry: it's absolutely awesome... but add some music and you can just as well enter it into VOTM. All the rules as they are do now is holding people back.
Also, "unedited" is a thin line. Cutting is obviously allowed... so is fading...

However, I think there should be enough people doing commentary videos... also, a competition like this could maybe get people to post their vids more regularly and get some new people to post some.
Right now, people do their battle commentaries for themselves, not designed to enter a competition... to me, the question is whether you want to attract them by designing the rules around what they do,
or whether you want to stay within the community already established in this subforum (without your message, I would never have visited it).
I myself entered the competition this time only because the vid I had done happened to fit the current rules by being shorter than 5 minutes.

Not allowing music is still very weird to me. It's allowed if added with mods but not if added with the video editing software? Weird.

[MasterBigAb]

Hmmm, maybe I did have the wrong idea about what the UEVM was supposed to be about.
Now, I don't really see its point. Look at Ab's entry: it's absolutely awesome... but add some music and you can just as well enter it into VOTM. All the rules as they are do now is holding people back.
Also, "unedited" is a thin line. Cutting is obviously allowed... so is fading...

However, I think there should be enough people doing commentary videos... also, a competition like this could maybe get people to post their vids more regularly and get some new people to post some.
Right now, people do their battle commentaries for themselves, not designed to enter a competition... to me, the question is whether you want to attract them by designing the rules around what they do,
or whether you want to stay within the community already established in this subforum (without your message, I would never have visited it).
I myself entered the competition this time only because the vid I had done happened to fit the current rules by being shorter than 5 minutes.

Not allowing music is still very weird to me. It's allowed if added with mods but not if added with the video editing software? Weird.

Due to that i think adding audio commentaries and another length would be more than ok...
but i think if you do it like you suggested, we get the other "extreme" - so i'd vote for being allowed to do both, but i am against some strict rules like only one replay, from beginning to end etc...
and by addign music into a video you can really like the nanny said so fitting manipulate a video very well, so i remain at my position not to allow it in this unedited video competition...
because then there would only be things lke texts and effets remain for votm and there are only some rare effects used in all our vids, so the two competitions would be too similar in my eyes...

[daniu]

because then there would only be things lke texts and effets remain for votm and there are only some rare effects used in all our vids, so the two competitions would be too similar in my eyes...

That is exactly what I meant with "I don't see the point anymore".
IMO, for a new discipline to be worthwhile, it has to be different enough from what is already there; that is why my proposed rules didn't mention the technicalities of video and picked up content as a guideline.

What I had in mind would actually allow texts and effects.


Let me try a parable.
Consider a writing competition. Every month, the most beautiful text wins.
Month after month, people submit poems into that competition because poetry is nicest to listen to.
A science paper would stand no chance, and therefore nobody even thinks about submitting one.
However, there are a number of scientists, so why not create a competition for them...

Now, how would you go about designing such a contest? Would you limit what words are allowed to be used?
Hardly. You would call for something like "texts with a scientific merit".

Can you still submit poems into that contest? Sure.
Does it have a chance to win? Well, it's not the format most suited for the task, but if you're doing it cleverly, why not?

Now, if you still start your competition with the limitation on allowed words, maybe some poets will start writing poems for it; it's probable those won't turn out as beautiful as the ones they used to write.
The scientists however will shake their heads at the limitation, ignore the contest and continue to design space rockets.

(Disclaimer: no disrespect intented, polemics included for sake of argument and punchline)

[MasterBigAb]

That is exactly what I meant with "I don't see the point anymore".
IMO, for a new discipline to be worthwhile, it has to be different enough from what is already there; that is why my proposed rules didn't mention the technicalities of video and picked up content as a guideline.

What I had in mind would actually allow texts and effects.


Let me try a parable.
Consider a writing competition. Every month, the most beautiful text wins.
Month after month, people submit poems into that competition because poetry is nicest to listen to.
A science paper would stand no chance, and therefore nobody even thinks about submitting one.
However, there are a number of scientists, so why not create a competition for them...

Now, how would you go about designing such a contest? Would you limit what words are allowed to be used?
Hardly. You would call for something like "texts with a scientific merit".

Can you still submit poems into that contest? Sure.
Does it have a chance to win? Well, it's not the format most suited for the task, but if you're doing it cleverly, why not?

Now, if you still start your competition with the limitation on allowed words, maybe some poets will start writing poems for it; it's probable those won't turn out as beautiful as the ones they used to write.
The scientists however will shake their heads at the limitation, ignore the contest and continue to design space rockets.

(Disclaimer: no disrespect intented, polemics included for sake of argument and punchline)

I get your point, but i think there will be even less people who are doing their vids in "your" style...
haven't seen many before, so i think it more or less is our only option to put it together, or to make two separated unedited video of the month, and tactical battle report or what you want to call it...
I think it might be good to wait what legio has to add to this topic

[daniu]

I get your point, but i think there will be even less people who are doing their vids in "your" style... haven't seen many before,

Ouch.
Well, let me introduce you to Synoptic, Angelos, saiedz, Point_Man, PyramidForce, to name a few. I'm sure you know POM.

[Nanny de Bodemloze]

this is a good discussion...when Legio first flew the idea of vid competitions up the flagpole, we were desperate to get more input from people regarding ideas for structure, rules etc...there wasn't enough discussion to make it all tight, but sometimes I guess you just have to throw something up on the dartboard and see what get's thrown at it so things can move forward. If something seems weird or a rule doesn't make sense, don't be discouraged and assume all this is a fait accompli...if the rules don't work for the participants, it can't work...so keep on speaking up mates!

[John Doe]

I always thought that BigAg' s videos doesn't comply with the rules. He did not get his footage from the battlemap, but from a replay and Cineditor (rule 2 from the general competition rules & regulation). My understanding of an "un-edited" video imply you can't get a discountinious camera movement (in time and space). The way Cineditor has been used in this case is not just to give a camera trajectory, but it has been used to removed battle time: obviously a montage took place (btw Cineditor ).

Daniu's kind of video is not my cup of tea, but is more in the spirit of the UEVM rules. Audio and some arrows make it watchable. If enough people wants to compete in this genre, so be it. Only rule that should apply is that it must be a continious footage, no video cutting (cropping allowed). Then everybody is free to add whatever they see fit (audio, music, arrows... anyway, not doing it seems suicidal). The name shoud be changed to the uncut video of the month (UCVM).

And the VOTM rules should be rewritten to add categories, such as best use of music, best scenario, most original idea.... (may be a theme of the month as well). Obviously the point system should be look into.

Then I would like to see one changes in the VOTM and UCVM, in order to keep it fair and inclusive: only freeware are allowed to work on the footage (name and link of softwares must be provide if it's not movie maker). A special category in the VOTM should be added for those who want to use Vegas or other commercial software and add filters/special effects..

EDIT: did not mean BigAb cheated, just pointed to a different interpretation of the rules

[MasterBigAb]

I always thought that BigAg' s videos doesn't comply with the rules. He did not get his footage from the battlemap, but from a replay and Cineditor (rule 2 from the general competition rules & regulation). My understanding of an "un-edited" video imply you can't get a discountinious camera movement (in time and space). The way Cineditor has been used in this case is not just to give a camera trajectory, but it has been used to removed battle time: obviously a montage took place (btw Cineditor ).

Daniu's kind of video is not my cup of tea, but is more in the spirit of the UEVM rules. Audio and some arrows make it watchable. If enough people wants to compete in this genre, so be it. Only rule that should apply is that it must be a continious footage, no video cutting (cropping allowed). Then everybody is free to add whatever they see fit (audio, music, arrows... anyway, not doing it seems suicidal). The name shoud be changed to the uncut video of the month (UCVM).

And the VOTM rules should be rewritten to add categories, such as best use of music, best scenario, most original idea.... (may be a theme of the month as well). Obviously the point system should be look into.

Then I would like to see one changes in the VOTM and UCVM, in order to keep it fair and inclusive: only freeware are allowed to work on the footage (name and link of softwares must be provide if it's not movie maker). A special category in the VOTM should be added for those who want to use Vegas or other commercial software and add filters/special effects..

i wasn't sure about that as well, but the cined doesn't change anything..
it is simply a replay, which you can record with normal camera, ro you start the cined and record it from other perspectives...
you could for example unlock the camera for empire as well and make suc scenes and still the vid would be unedited so my work comply with the rules !
the uvom competition was meant to show tw videos without any editing, without manipulation, and a competition is always used to find somebody who is doing it best.
so it is meant to find someone, who can fetch the best possible out of tw game wothout adding anything, beside that, everyone can use such camera unlock methods....
and about cropping
i really think the idea about not being allowed to cut it is really silly, since you donot edit it in any further way by this...
if you don#t cut out anything, you'd have to show it from the moment the battle starts, until the victory screen appears, and that often takes between 10 and 30 minutes, and who can upload a 30 minute video, and who wants to watch 5 of them for a competition ?????

[John Doe]

i wasn't sure about that as well, but the cined doesn't change anything..
it is simply a replay, which you can record with normal camera, ro you start the cined and record it from other perspectives...
you could for example unlock the camera for empire as well and make suc scenes and still the vid would be unedited so my work comply with the rules !
the uvom competition was meant to show tw videos without any editing, without manipulation, and a competition is always used to find somebody who is doing it best.
so it is meant to find someone, who can fetch the best possible out of tw game wothout adding anything, beside that, everyone can use such camera unlock methods....
and about cropping

I'm a noob in video making, so I googled "editing video definition" and cutting video is part of the editing process.

But Wikipedia gives that definition of video "Video is the technology of electronically capturing, recording, processing, storing, transmitting, and reconstructing a sequence of still images representing scenes in motion". So if you got a single file from the cineditor (with the cut scenes), then it's technically not against the rule anymore.

i really think the idea about not being allowed to cut it is really silly, since you donot edit it in any further way by this...
if you don#t cut out anything, you'd have to show it from the moment the battle starts, until the victory screen appears, and that often takes between 10 and 30 minutes, and who can upload a 30 minute video, and who wants to watch 5 of them for a competition ?????

I agree, as I said before it's not my cup of tea and I did not watch daniu's video till the end, but if it appeals to enough would-be competitors, I don't see why that video genre should be excluded.

@The Nanny: true enough, none of the TW game are freeware and they need an OS and a PC with good spec and a connection to the web, but that is where the line should be drawn imo. As for the use of Vegas, I think you under estimate your own work (debt of honor), just to point to 2 scenes: part3 with the night battles and the nightmare sequence. Those special effects create an atmosphere and create a new dimension in the story. True you still need a good story, but in these cases the special effect made the story by their subjective influence. So I believe that using some ficture of Vegas will give unfair advantage, and something should be done about it.

[daniu]

I agree, as I said before it's not my cup of tea and I did not watch daniu's video till the end,

Hey! I heard that!

About the freeware: it's out of the question to exclude commercial products from the get-go because it's impossible to verify what software someone used from the final video.

And as much as I'm for freeware, they usually just don't have the same quality as commercial products...
I do use GIMP and OpenOffice, but for video editing, I bought Magix - because MM is crap, and Magix I've used it before and know how it works.
Would I go back to a freeware editor just to be able to enter the competition? LOL.
Creating own categories for commercially edited vids? I can only guess, but I would expect the resulting categories to be 1-3 people each

[Nanny de Bodemloze]

True you still need a good story, but in these cases the special effect made the story by their subjective influence. So I believe that using some ficture of Vegas will give unfair advantage, and something should be done about it.

You can do many effects in Movie Maker, including those that I used in the scenes you described.

Many people move away from MM not because it doesn't have bells and whistles, but because the program becomes unstable when trying to make a movie over 2 minutes in length. Telling people that they can't use software X is not really fair...it would be like telling the POTW folk that GIMP is OK, but Photoshop is out. Frankly, MM isn't the tool used by most of the busiest vid makers on this site. It is a good tool for people starting out, and some people have pushed it to its limits with wonderful effect...it is usually stability that drives people away. Naxzul uses some pretty cool software...I don't have it, can't spend the $$, but I wouldn't want to exclude him from a competition because of it. If you want to see the best TWC has to offer, and watch them compete, you simply have to allow the tools they are using. And since my software can't do what Naxzul's does, I simply try to make do with what I have, or carve out my own niche. In the end, and sorry for using his stuff as an example but the dude really does set the bar, it isn't his effects and software that make his vids great: it is his eye for the money shots, his pacing, his editing (knowing what to include and what not to), the selection of the music etc etc. If you want to beat him in any competition, getting $500 software won't make a stick of difference...but I wouldn't want to tell him he can't use what he's been using all along.

This is why I think that prizes and recognition should go beyond a straight single winner. Beginners could be recognized...artistic merit...technical achievement...up-and-comers...whatever...who even cares about medals? Must people would be happy with winning a category, and not even care if something shiny dangles below their avatar. Because as much as I strongly disagree with you on the restrictions you are mentioning, I think the sentiment behind it has alot of merit - that having one winner doesn't tell all the interesting stories in the competition.

[LuckyLewis]

Personally, I have no problem with battle commentary being included in the UEVM. I just can see this competition being almost overshadowed by the VOTM if we do not stretch the boundaries at all. There are a lot of limitations with the UEVM and from what has been discussed in this thread, it can be difficult to decide what exactly is an unedited entry into the competition, so I think we should all work on rewriting the UEVM rules. But back to the point, I think battle commentary videos would bring more to the UEVM , and as shown by Daniu, there are plenty of people who make them, therefore more entries, and more fun and more good watches. For those reasons, I'd support a change in the rules to allow battle commentary videos to be used in the competition.

As for the video editing software, Nanny is correct, I did use Movie Maker to make my entry. He is also correct that MM can be considered to be rather unstable and limited. However, I have absolutely no problem with other people using more advanced software, as mention earlier, I also don't think you need all the best editing to win the VOTW as just like the Picture of the week contest... originality, good footage and general talent may prevail over the heavily edited videos. But what do I know, we haven't even finished the first competition yet. If those of us using arguably worse software don't have a problem with the more talented and advanced chaps using Song Vegas, there shouldn't be a problem if you ask me.

Oh, and I too fully support the idea of different winning categories, however, I'm not sure if it would work considering it would require a bit more management of Legio's behalf. I could also see the POTW following and there being 10 or so polls up at a time

This very much reminds of that recent discussion about what/who should and shouldn't be allowed to compete within the monthly AAR competition.

Lewis

[Nanny de Bodemloze]

some very interesting ideas zyxos...I don't agree some of them, but it is definitely good food for thought.

And the VOTM rules should be rewritten to add categories, such as best use of music, best scenario, most original idea.... (may be a theme of the month as well). Obviously the point system should be look into.

...I supported this notion from the beginning, as you have...maybe just an idea a bit ahead of its time, that we should keep in mind as the competition evolves.

Then I would like to see one changes in the VOTM and UCVM, in order to keep it fair and inclusive: only freeware are allowed to work on the footage (name and link of softwares must be provide if it's not movie maker). A special category in the VOTM should be added for those who want to use Vegas or other commercial software and add filters/special effects..

...I can see what you are driving at...trying to get a level playing field. However, nothing is truly freeware (we pay for windows even), and even the commercial software has trial versions. I don't agree that this is the solution. First, if you look at Lewis' vid, he did that entirely in MM. Now, he could do the same thing in Vegas, maybe more, but in the end the best videos are not the flashiest, but those that make sense, have had thought put into them, perhaps even tell a story. In the POTW, you'll find that those pics that have been over filtered and over-worked don't win: people recognize when people have added transitions and filters and effects just for the sake of doing so, when it doesn't contribute to the quality of the work. I would offer that a good video will be recognized regardless of what software produced it. I see many over-produced pictures in POTW lose to someone who simply has a good eye for the money shot, and didn't add anything extra.

Still, I'm glad you put these things on the table for more discussion

[LuckyLewis]

oh jolly, this is an interesting discussion, i'll post my thoughts later on.

[Nanny de Bodemloze]

there are many who do these types of vids, they just tend to be a little less active in this area of the forums...and their work is quite excellent.

[John Doe]

OK, the majority clearly wants commercial software to be allowed, so I change my mind on it.

[VersionLangley]

OK, the majority clearly wants commercial software to be allowed, so I change my mind on it.

It not a problem voicing a minority zyxos ^^ since i'm sure most of us would value all suggestion regardless
Commercial software, i assumed are only effects on VOTM thread since any effects are unallow in UEVM. For that, it would be better if the VOTM thread to be unbound by any means. So that any director can do anything they wish and show all their abilities. use anything to showcase your works

I'll agree that commentaries should be in UEVM because while the VOTM use any effect of video and sound to convey a message, UEVM don't have such means. With video cropping and time restrictions, it would be hard for audience to makes any sense out of the video

As for time restrictions, i'm not sure why there are limits on time maximum and time minimum. since it require work to pass both extreme

-short vids than 2 mins: you have to make enough impact to make your tiny video memorable
-longer than 8 mins: you have to make the video interest enough for people to continue to watch
both extreme require a lot of hard work such as nanny's hour long presentation. Its quite excellent. If his video are boring, audience would simply stop watching and down grade the vid -> no votes or nomination

i can understand why short than 2 min vids are not allow since it make mass spaming....but i don't understand the restriction on long vids since TWcenter doesn't host the video files

if you want a time restrictions, i'll say the 10 mins restriction on youtube are adequate.