dennischan wrote:
For example, Uta from ICDD should not be cut because it is clear that after the end of the intro that there is still music afterwards.
That doesn't match with what you're saying later. As you said A.L.I.E.N could be cut. But if it were cut, it also would be clear that there was music before/after part that didn't got removed. (no longer 'cause you remove this part from your statement) The sole excistence of transition between songs cannot be treated as argument for not separating them as it doesn't even take into account what those songs are. By this logic any of songs from SakiZ's "Osu!Memories" can't be treated as separate song 'cause the drums making transition between songs smooth were added.
inb4
>but "Osu!Memories" is unofficial mix that came after songs were released
and let's be honest, even if all of them wouldn't be released before and that wouldn't be an unofficial mix, but official song, still nobody would call it this way. The point is to look at the song the way it actually is and not how someone calls it to be.
dennischan wrote:
"Ranking is a privilege not a right" A ranked map is supposed to be official content that has the approval of the community at large. If so-called "intro-versions" are not welcome by the community, of course it would be barred from rank.
And this is the most basic problem with it, but I'm not gonna again repeat why ranking process is shit 'cause that's obvious.
The reason why I won't ever agree with this argument is simple. This game is for all people, who might have different music/gameplay/etc. preferences. Just 'cause majority of players can't enjoy slow songs/easy maps/actually hard maps/certain music genres/etc. doesn't mean those shouldn't be ranked. Every person while entering the community should have the possibility of playing ranked maps of what they like and shouldn't be forced to or like what everyone likes or leave. It's the game that is for people, not the opposite
dennischan wrote:
Thirdly, allowing skipping the intro but not the main body is justified because the intro is less important to the work objectively than the main body, simply by comparing the length and elements used (chords, instruments, vocals, phrases of music and so on).
Using "objectivity" as argument just shows you don't know what this word actually mean.
>According to mancrafted concept of being less intense/slow/etc., does this song objectively follows those criteria
The answer is yes. It objectively does 'cause those are actual treats of matter you can measure and compare. If you were to be learned the idea of slow and fast the opposite (meaning you call being slow, being fast) you still would call it corecttly. Just naming changed, the state of thing and reason why you're assuming it's in this state stayed the same.
and the problem with judging if something is objectively more important is that anything named "important" doesn't exist in the first place. It's not a treat, you can't measure it nor compare. If you were to be learned that it's slow parts that are more important you would tell the song is good from completely different reason. It's not objective and never will be 'cause it fully depends on world view you have.
dennischan wrote:
bad cuts, especially intro-ver cuts, make for a general poor gameplay experience.
If by "poor" you mean "simple", "not-variable" (or actually anything else), that might shock you, but if I do play slow song I don't expect it to be super speed tech-song. If I play an easy diff, I play it BECAUSE I want to experience what EASY diff provides, not INSANE. Same with playing SLOW song, not FAST. REPETITIVE, not VARIABLE and anything else you could possibly came up with.
dennischan wrote:
For example, intro-vers are usually EE sets or EN sets
That doesn't even depend on the song, but on how player will interpret it. It can't be an argument for judging a song if it doesn't depend on it.