The "perfect" score was not, in fact, intended to mean "there's just no way it can be improved, it has reached absolute perfection, it completes the game in the minimum possible amount of frames, it's a run which I would watch 1000 times in a row". It was meant to be more like "this is about the best video I have ever seen here, it was absolutely fabulous, I can't even imagine how it could be improved".
Well, for instance, to me a "10" in technical means "the run has reached the limit with the known tricks, and it can't be improved further using them". That's why I'm always trying to ask the authors of certain "overoptimized" runs if there are any places where time could be saved. If there weren't any, and the history of the run showed rather clearly that the game was already close to the limit, I gave such run a ten (currently there are 7 such runs, obviously none of them obsoleted).
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Ugh… The shit. :\
I was hoping for anything but this. The game basically runs at 20—30 FPS all the time as if it was actually emulated on GBA. How did this abomination of a game even slipped past the quality control?
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
WIP #3: Morphing Ball (00:01:30 @ ingame time).
Total improvement: 28 frames against Saturn's WIP (may have to redo the last room, though); 2.5 seconds against Drew's run. Enjoy.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
By the way, Catnap, do you know if Hotarubi or someone else from your community is going to make an unassisted speedrun in another category (100%, low% or segmented any%)? That would certainly be interesting to know.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
I think it won't be accepted as a screenshot. However, a screenshot of that double Friendship wouldn't be worse, I believe. It's funny, unusual and very representative.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
The last boss looks really unimpressive in this game. What, three brains on a shooting thingy? Bah, they could have used some monstrous weird looking aircraft or something like that.
An improvement is an improvement, though, so it's a yes.
BTW, I dig the music.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
I was in mixed feelings about the previous glitched run: something was hilarious, something was pretty bland; this submission, however, weeds nearly all the bland moments out, and that's very good. It's harder, faster and more interesting. Also, that "Kidd Thunder" Friendship was priceless. Yes vote.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Items, you say? Hmm, but if that doesn't imply some route changes, the run would essentially follow the same course as the starred one… only slower, wouldn't it?
Also, how about doing a quick lazily-assisted mock run to show the main differences?
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Alright, the WIP now completes Ceres, which is by far (IMO) the most random and fantastically inconvenient place to do… well, anything possible. I had to sacrifice a lot of frames (and also a nicer escape time) to deal with randomness, but the end result was really worth it, since I couldn't copypaste Saturn's two frames faster escape due to randomness.
On the question of improvability: overall, if there is a possibility to manipulate all the room states to be ideal without any slowdowns (I find it very improbable, and the worst thing is that you can't know it until you do the run with full optimization), then it is possible to save 15—20 more frames during the segment; if there isn't, then it's only 5—10 frames or so. Having an escape time of 00:20.xx is definitely impossible in any case.
Total improvement is: 21 frames against Saturn's WIP; 105 frames against Drew's run. The progress will be faster now, that's for sure. :D
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
[…]
1) I agree with Moozooh that the movie's technical perfection is independent of whether or not you like the movie (this is avoiding cross contamination of ratings).
[…]
I pretty much agree with everything you said (except the grapefruit part)
You agree with JXQ who agrees with me, but you don't agree with me. A nice way of contradicting yourself.
NecroVMX wrote:
You only seem to want to contest the rating that I am not going to change
Never was my intention. Also, apparently, you didn't seem to understand my previous post even in the slightest.
NecroVMX wrote:
and from now on if someone asks how I rated, the answer is none of your business
Funny to see you pissed off, since no-one has even asked you that question to begin with, you've chosen to disclose that voluntarily. :)
And next time before you choose to give a technically admirable run a low technical rating, which basically says it was executed poorly, have at least a common courtesy and respect for the authors. Thank you.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
I explained why. On one hand it showed that it was technically impressive and close to unimprovable. However it also says "how close it is to perfection" My idea of perfection and the idea of perfection shown in this TAS differ drastically. So i gave it the middle rating. Keep in mind 5 is now low, it's average.
Apparently, you don't really understand the concept behind the two separate rating categories. What you said up there belongs entirely to the entertainment domain. Your idea of perfection — the unglitched movie or what have you — doesn't have anything to do with the technical perfection of the this run. The technical score is intended to show how well do the runners perform in the chosen type of a run (and that type is something that you're unsatisfacted with, not the "average" performance which comes out of your rating values). Basically, a similar run that could have gotten 5 for technical would look nearly the same (the same inane glitching and stuff), but would be ~3 minutes longer because of the inoptimizations.
EDIT: JXQ, I'm not taking Necro's vote from him, I just want to understand why does he rate one thing with an idea of another.
EDIT2: Nevermind, JXQ. :D
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Umm, well, how come you're rating its technical performance as "average", provided the fact that it's hardly improvable at all — that is, in its definite category? It may not appear entertaining to you — I'm ok with that — but that low technical rating is just unfair, IMO.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
I am not going to support runs like this, I'm going to vote no for runs like this, and when they get published, I am going to give them a very low entertainment rating.
On a related note, do you by any chance know who rated this run with 1/1? The person who did that was one of the first three raters, so the fact was pretty clear.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Well, regarding Michael Flatley, this was a part of his answer to my mail I wrote him a couple of days ago.
I apologize to have left the scene so suddenly, I have not played a single console/computer/emulator game since I got married nearly a year ago. I hope to someday start this hobby again but right now my focus is elsewhere :O/
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
FYI, Plextor frequently uses other companies successful hardware solutions and sell them under the expensive brand. For example, Plextor PX-740A is in fact nothing more (literally) than BenQ DW1640 — just with different firmware, retail package, and a price at least twice as high.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Crush 'em!