I've noticed that a lot of newer users complain about how bad the early charts were. It's not a coincidence that nearly every chart sucked by the standards now--there were several causes.
Q: Why do so many of the earlier charts have blue arrows?
A: Because we had not yet developed a system that distinguished rhythms by color. Every chart converted as "flat" notes; the system we have now was not possible then.
Q: Why do some of the earlier charts have backgrounds?
A: Back when the earlier charts were developed we viewed FFR as an extension of SM/DWI, and every chart on SM is expected to have a background. The "no background" style that FFR has now developed long after we had made those charts.
Q: Why are so many of the earlier charts offbeat and/or have very awkward rhythm patterns?
A: Mostly because of the conversion process. Charts made for FFR have to be converted from .dwi and .sm files, which are the chart files that the open-source program "Stepmania" uses. The converter that FFR uses has gotten increasingly more sophisticated over the years. The earliest charts had to be manually tapped out by Synthlight, and the files like Revolutionary Etude, Rondo Alla Turca, Molto Vivace, etc. were made when the converter was in its earliest stages.
Q: Why do the earliest charts suck?
A: Charts can't objectively 'suck' beyond very basic criteria like vaguely going to the music so a good portion of how you view charts will depend on how new you are and what your preferences are.
Q: Why were so many of the earlier charts unnecessarily hard?
A: Mostly because of competition back in early 2003 between Reach, Hyro, Yanah, Spazzbite, and myself (among others; those are the people I remember most) to one-up everyone else by making harder files. The reason we had this attitude was because the bar for skill/difficulty at the time was very low and playing SM on a keyboard was in its early stages, so we were less concerned with the nuances of files like people are now and more concerned with raising the bar for skill/difficulty. To get an idea of the way we viewed FFR back then I suggest you read this thread.
Q: Why do so many of the earlier charts have blue arrows?
A: Because we had not yet developed a system that distinguished rhythms by color. Every chart converted as "flat" notes; the system we have now was not possible then.
Q: Why do some of the earlier charts have backgrounds?
A: Back when the earlier charts were developed we viewed FFR as an extension of SM/DWI, and every chart on SM is expected to have a background. The "no background" style that FFR has now developed long after we had made those charts.
Q: Why are so many of the earlier charts offbeat and/or have very awkward rhythm patterns?
A: Mostly because of the conversion process. Charts made for FFR have to be converted from .dwi and .sm files, which are the chart files that the open-source program "Stepmania" uses. The converter that FFR uses has gotten increasingly more sophisticated over the years. The earliest charts had to be manually tapped out by Synthlight, and the files like Revolutionary Etude, Rondo Alla Turca, Molto Vivace, etc. were made when the converter was in its earliest stages.
Q: Why do the earliest charts suck?
A: Charts can't objectively 'suck' beyond very basic criteria like vaguely going to the music so a good portion of how you view charts will depend on how new you are and what your preferences are.
Q: Why were so many of the earlier charts unnecessarily hard?
A: Mostly because of competition back in early 2003 between Reach, Hyro, Yanah, Spazzbite, and myself (among others; those are the people I remember most) to one-up everyone else by making harder files. The reason we had this attitude was because the bar for skill/difficulty at the time was very low and playing SM on a keyboard was in its early stages, so we were less concerned with the nuances of files like people are now and more concerned with raising the bar for skill/difficulty. To get an idea of the way we viewed FFR back then I suggest you read this thread.
.
Comment