Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2094)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1029
Location: US
ruadath wrote:
Damn, you're really hitting up all those C64 runs, huh? Might I suggest Shogun as your next project?
I grew up with the C64, and love it for nostalgia reasons. I'll probably spend quite a bit of time working C64 games.
I'm currently working the OCEAN port of Double Dragon for C64. I'll consider looking into Shogun at some point in the future (I don't remember playing that one as a kid).
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2094)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1029
Location: US
zoboner wrote:
...imagine Mothrayas or Adelikat submit PONG...
I wouldn't be surprised if one of them could find a way to make even PONG interesting.
As far as this submission is concerned: I had actually started working on this game as well (through maybe 3 or 4 holes) but without LUA help. I don't know LUA well enough.
It's quite a difficult game to optimize (not to mention tedious without the LUA). Kudos to link_7777 for completing it!
While I'm excited to see the result...this game isn't very entertaining to watch. Voting 'Meh' because the work and result deserve better than 'No.'
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2094)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1029
Location: US
fsvgm777 wrote:
The run itself is good, but to me, it was also a tad boring to watch. No vote on entertainment. It's good for the Vault, however.
I completely understand...unfortunately many C64 games aren't the most exciting things to watch. Sadly Jungle Hunt is much more entertaining than a lot of other C64 games.
Still, striving for vault runs can be a worthy goal at times.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2094)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1029
Location: US
zoboner wrote:
-When you make smaller after drank the potion, you going on the enemy (6.25) and you reappeared to a differente position... It's a bug or well it's normal?
First, I'm glad you like the run.
The position change going from small to regular size is normal and results from the enemy killing the wizard. He simply re-spawns in the room in a different location than where he was killed by the enemy. This is an instance where death is used to save time.
In order to return to normal size without dying, you have to use another potion that is obtained from the same room the death happens in; it just takes more time.
zoboner wrote:
-Have you intention to make the version or Ana don't die, in a futur project?
I had originally considered doing a 'good ending' run, but as Pokota stated its extra time and work for very minimal change to the game. In fact, the only a change is the endgame text on the NES version; the graphic sprites of the rope coming down at the end of the game are the same with both endings. Sprite differences between endings are only on the Genesis version. See http://www.vgmuseum.com/end/nes/c/immortal.htm and http://www.vgmuseum.com/end/nes/c/immortalbad.htm for screenshots of both the NES endings.
I had submitted this run with the 'bad ending' branch name while I was still planing on doing runs of both endings, but I have since changed my mind. Truthfully, I don't know if the differences between endings are enough to warrant multiple branches for this game.
As far as the branch name is concerned, I'll leave it up to the judge and/or publisher to determine if a branch is necessary if the run is accepted for publication.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2094)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1029
Location: US
Basic Differences:
This one may just be me, but the ratio of wizard size to room size seems different.
Some level layout changes including door locations and room placement (mostly in early levels).
As mentioned above, no spider dungeon.
Fireball spells - You do not need to pick up a special spell to shoot fireballs. Sadly, fireballs are only effective on flying enemies.
Combat - You cannot defeat goblins/trolls with those fireballs; these enemies must be engaged hand to hand on the combat screen.
At least in my opinion, enemies seem to be more direct chasing you and thus more difficult to dodge in the NES version.
Other than the missing spider level, these aren't drastic changes
TheRealThingy wrote:
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2094)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1029
Location: US
feos wrote:
My intent is to help you learn newer skills, especially when this run is a perfect example of things we need to understand and we don't.
If you have any questions about reversing, I can guide you.
Thank you. One of the things I have appreciated about TASvideos.org is how many people in the community have been willing to help and teach.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2094)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1029
Location: US
Archanfel, TheRealThingy:
Did either of you read any of the discussion for the current published run? Did you completely read the comments for this submission?
Your arguments are exactly what this submission's comments are all about.
Both of you have claimed that the current submission is sub-optimal/sloppy in the same way that Feos did when I submitted the currently published movie. You've made an improvement over a few frames, but neither of you have shown anything that guarantees your 'improvement' will not negatively affect RNG and that the rest of the run will play out at the same pace or even faster resulting in a faster completion.
The whole point of this submission is to show that doing one part of a game slower can still result in a faster overall run.
And yes, I realize 8 frames is a minuscule improvement, but it is still better. It's also why I indicated the intended sarcasm regarding those 8 frames in the submission comments.
Furthermore, Archanfel, I may still be a relative newcomer to TASing, but I'm not so naive to think that name dropping will somehow improve my chances of a submission being accepted. Feos had a legitimate part in why this submission even happened, it's only proper to give credit where credit is due.Feos:feos wrote:
You can try yourself:
I'll look more into learning how to reverse engineer, but I know it is currently beyond my understanding. Hopefully that will change soon.
feos wrote:
Relying on trial and error isn't an effective way of tasing anymore.
While trial and error may not be the most effective or efficient method of actually TASing, it is still a method that those of us learning can use as a foundation to build knowledge of new methods upon.
We shouldn't expect all new people to the TASing community to use the most up-to date or advanced methods from the moment they join. If I had perceived that as a requirement, I would likely have never started because I wouldn't have felt that I had the necessary knowledge or skills to participate.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2094)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1029
Location: US
feos wrote:
Oh man, please don't make me debug this freaking RNG :D
Nothing says you HAVE to.
But...if you're so inclined...I'll help however I can.
As I mentioned in the description...it was more of a curiosity to revisit it in the first place.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2094)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1029
Location: US
I think "delayed" would be the better choice until I can get the run tweaked again. Maybe "delayed pending anticipated improvements" or something along those lines.
My only reasoning goes back to the "what if" situation that the resulting tweaked run isn't faster overall.
Then again, if you reject this one by mentioning the anticipated improvements and then it turns out being the better run, I suppose it could be un-rejected with an accompanying note that the anticipated improvements didn't pan out.
So either way could work. I suppose the choice of semantics is yours.
It might be a bit before I can update it though.
On a different (but related) note: if either this or a tweaked run gets published, should we include you as a contributing author for pointing out these improvements?
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2094)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1029
Location: US
feos wrote:
PS: Several site members including me really like your attitude in that you use to dig to the core of the situation, keep that up! You have the bronze medal there btw! We don't give prizes for that, but you beat quite some guys there!
I'm thankful that my thoughts aren't falling on deaf ears. Often I'm just trying to better understand for myself what even I'm attempting to do. But if my curiosities and comments are broadening the discussions regarding the more philosophical side of this hobby, then I'm very honored and humbled to have sparked those discussions.
Prizes aren't as important as understanding. As wonderful as they may be, prizes don't help me TAS better in the future; understanding does.
Duly noted and appreciated.
I'm not trying to be difficult with the following, just throwing out some thoughts I feel should be considered when judging games.
Yes. Your tweak improved the character position by 2 pixels. I'll admit that your partial work is more optimal in the immediate sense, but I think it's unfair (and a bit of a speculation) to extrapolate out this minor positional/frame difference as a claim that my submitted complete run is less optimal than a complete run using this improvement would be. It very well may be an accurate assumption, but at this point we don't know that as fact.
Isn't it possible that taking one portion of game slightly slower can result in a faster overall run? Until a complete run using this improvement is submitted, my submission is the most optimal complete run known.
If it's valid to suggest that a run is sub-optimal based on one or two frames this early in the run, I feel that it's just as valid to suggest that even this minor improvement in the immediate sense could potentially have RNG effects that would lengthen the resulting complete video by those same couple frames.
I'll gladly tweak this game again, but in the meantime shouldn't my submitted run stand as the current best, given that there is not yet proof that this improvement demonstrated in a partial run will result in an overall improvement?
Forgive me if I sound like I'm complaining, I don't mean to. I just feel that a judgement of sub-optimal play should be based on full run times not on partials.
One of the rules of the site is that runs must be complete to be submitted. I always assumed that there were two reasons for this:
1) Because people are unlikely to want to watch partial games.
2) Because doing one part of a game faster than someone else doesn't mean you can do the whole game faster.
I realize that you're just trying to keep the best-of-the-best on the website, and rightly so. But isn't that what obsoleting previously published runs is all about? A complete run that is the best known gets published then when someone betters it with a new faster complete run it obsoletes the first.
Again, I'm not trying to be difficult, but it does make me wonder how many games or runs have been rejected in the past due to "sub-optimal" play when there's no complete comparison to claim the submitted run as sub-optimal.
I understand that we don't want sloppy play on the site, but there's a HUGE difference between sloppy and sub-optimal play.
Thanks for reading this far, if you have. I'll step off my soapbox now.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2094)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1029
Location: US
Right. The inputs are still close together, but vary anywhere between 2-5 frames.
Overall the new submission saves 131 frames over my original. RNG changes brought the overall improvement down from your 150ish frame improvement of Stage 1.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2094)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1029
Location: US
feos wrote:
...This run is also quite sloppy. Here's my 105 frame improvement of what looks like level 1.
http://tasvideos.org/userfiles/info/36146295028709928
The jet controls are indeed shitty, but not shitty enough to lose so much time.
Thanks for pointing this out. Somehow I missed that attacking while airborne allows horizontal motion to continue while standing attacks don't.
I've reworked this submission and was able to further improve on even your time through stage 1 by an additional 33 frames. Varying the frame delay between "A" button presses while using the jetpack affects lift height and I was able to more smoothly traverse a couple of the high platforms in that stage.
I also discovered that there is a 1-frame window in which you can jump out of mid air after taking damage. I utilized this to speed up the final boss fight.
Spikestuff wrote:
Kinda disappointed you didn't playaround with the Kangaroo.
After rewatching the original submission, I agree; it is disappointing to see the character just stop. So this time I played along the whole time with the Aussie.
New submission - http://tasvideos.org/5356S.html
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2094)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1029
Location: US
Nicos wrote:
...but is it really a glitch or is a intended / left debug feature ? in the lion tamer / bear level you can clearly see the exit drawn on the screen
Fair question.
In my opinion; unless we could discuss the left-side exits with a developer to confirm that they were intentional for testing purposes, we have to (at the very least) assume that any undrawn left exits were unintentional.
Also, if it is an intentional/debug method, why would they not have included one for the 2nd part of Stage 1? Or why, if used a way to skip directly to bosses, wouldn't they have had the left exit of Stage 1 go directly to the Clown Boss skipping the second part entirely?
To be fair and consider both sides of the coin, if we're willing to speculate that the all the left exits were debug intended, then we also have to consider the possibility that none of the left exits were intended including the drawn ones. Perhaps they were intended to be simply graphical tie-ins to previous stages.
It's quite possible that it was these drawn left-side exits that prompted someone to try and leave an undrawn one in the first place.
Either way, it brings up an interesting question/concept for all games:
For any game, it seems to me more appropriate to consider an event like this a glitch as opposed to debug intent unless there is some sort of in-game indicator that it was debug intent--or unless a developer has (via interview or written confirmation somewhere) confirmed that the event in question was part of a debug process.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2094)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1029
Location: US
So I've already found a few differences in playing around with both the Japanese and US versions that something is not equal between the versions.
The Japanese version has an added password system.
You have to press a button to clear the stage titles in the Japanese version.
In the first tower, it is possible to get by the 1st molecule enemy via the elevator on the Japanese version, but not on the US version using equal input (thus resulting in a longer wait and ultimately longer video. As I stated earlier, I wonder if the hitbox is different allowing for this or if it is just minor programming differences affecting spawn timing.
All that said, I'm still going to re-work my original using the other routing and re-submit.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2094)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1029
Location: US
There doesn't appear to be much difference between the US and the Japanese version (other than the playable character appearance). Would the sprite difference affect hitbox? I'm not tech savy enough to know how to figure that out.
Given that the other video is faster (it appears that he has a couple faster routes than mine), I'll withdraw this submission and tweak it and re-submit if I can improve it.
Thanks for pointing out the other video. I did not come across that in my searches.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2094)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1029
Location: US
Hard to admit this about one's own submission; but based on the grand total of 1 vote, I'm guessing that its a rather unpopular game. It also makes me curious how many have even watched it to begin with.
Though that's probably not the type of feedback you were looking for.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2094)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1029
Location: US
As noted by Feos in the rejection details for the non-warp version of this run, this submission may be better labeled as "Any %" instead of "warp glitches."
As a relative newcomer to the site, I didn't fully realize the depth of memory/code manipulation necessary for something to be a "warp glitch."
Anyway, I still think this is at minimum a vaultable run (if not moon worthy) for an "Any %" run. And with that consideration, it would be faster than the run rejected by Feos.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2094)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1029
Location: US
Feos,
The rejection note makes sense to me. Thanks for the clarification/elaboration of what constitutes a warp glitch for the purposes of this website. It would have been nice to have understood this before making two different submissions (as it would have saved me a lot of time), but a good lesson learned nonetheless.
I'll try to be better about choosing my goals and labeling submissions in the future.
Thanks again!
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2094)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1029
Location: US
I believe roughly 10 or 11 glitches are used to speed up movement in the overhead view stages in the glitched version; which saves a little under two and a half minutes by doing the glitches.
I didn't go back and re-count them, so I might be off by one or two.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2094)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1029
Location: US
As best as I can figure out, the initial location of the bugs in the top-down levels is determined to some degree on the frame timing of which you leave the previous room.
I did some manipulation of this to get favorable positions. However, with the few times I do the 'dance,' I could not find a worthwhile frame within a reasonable distance on the previous room before exiting that would yield an enemy setup that didn't require some delay.
Those enemies have a combination of predetermined movements and chasing the player.
So to simplify that explanation: As best as I could figure, the option became a trade-off between a delay before leaving a room, or a delay in the next room. I simply chose the later delay and spun Beetlejuice around in circles to have some character movement happening.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2094)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1029
Location: US
Hey guys,
I am amazed that no one has yet submitted this game.
I watched Randil's Youtube video. I think you should have submitted it way back when you guys were originally discussing this. Even with the subtle unoptimized things you pointed out, it was still entertaining. Unfortunately I could not get your .fm2 video to sync beyond getting into the first building (different emulator version?), so I couldn't really study your inputs very well.
Anyway, your 5-10 seconds estimate was quite accurate based on my recent submission http://tasvideos.org/5280S.html
...at least as far as a straight play-through is concerned.
While trying to beat your video, I discovered a glitch (or at least the beneficial use of a glitch) that allows for much faster completion of the top-view levels.
I also submitted a run using those glitches: http://tasvideos.org/5279S.html
Details on the glitch are given in the submission text.
I hope you guys like these.
