Low glitch runs particularly avoid certain bugs, rather than doing them differently to achieve other results. Inichi's test run is technically "low glitch".
Many of the DS TASes we have abuse corruption techniques by the boatloads, owing it to the simple fact that DS has a lid. If anything, I would expect even more breakage in a DS version of any SNES game.
Finally, we'd break the site's (TASVideos) structure by having one movie taking two movies to obsolete it.
Well, not really. In case with Super Metroid, there was once an any% that aimed for in-game time that was the fastest available run. Then an any% aimed for realtime came along and obsoleted it. Then a new any% aiming for in-game time was submitted, and published alongside it as a different category. Then a glitched low% that was also the fastest run at the time, both by in-game and realtime metrics, was submitted and yet again published alongside, with the "long" any% runs being treated pretty much as playarounds/low-glitch runs.
That being said, I'm undecided on the matter. Right now I'd rather see a complete glitched run without the corruption, but then again it might not be quite as entertaining as I expect it to be. This submission should definitely be published though, one way or another. I enjoyed the 20-minute one, but I wouldn't really watch it twice either.
Low-poly look doesn't bother me at all as long as the game is well-designed, and this one is. That's the right priority, imo.
The "I am an enchantress" dialogue instantly reminded me of this, btw. :D
they both use save corruption, I don't see how the same glitch used suboptimally grants a new category
Ah, you're right. I forgot what made the current version so much faster.
ALAKTORN wrote:
it's called lag
It's not. Lag is latency, meaning the signal you send goes through the entire chain at some point; it doesn't account for situations when it doesn't go through at all. The emulator, on the other hand, has no intended "windows of opportunity" within a frame, outside of which it doesn't receive any input.
By the way, I don't think this should obsolete the NewGame+ run because the NG+ one beats the game in (semi-)conventional way, final boss and all, doesn't use the same glitches, and is remarkably different from any other kind of run.
rog wrote:
Er, yes it does?
If the signal reaches the emulator, it is recorded. If it doesn't, it means it didn't reach the emulator in the first place. If that happens, blame something in the chain of "keyboard—port—driver—OS".
We would need ludicrously accurate clocks in the hardware and perfectly manufactured components. Neither of those are realistic, or even achievable with lots of resources.
Rather, we need a lot of time for restarts. One of them will eventually sync.
Thanks for the explanation. Aside from verifying the run, can the very concept of mid-frame resets be verified?
That's simple: any keypress, reset or otherwise, happens mid-frame on the actual console. Emulators just decrease input resolution to screen refresh resolution for convenience. On a real console, you can push a button so fast the console won't register it—that wouldn't happen on the emulator.
I mentioned inichi's run right in the first line of the submission text. I assumed most viewers would already be familiar with it. The run was used as reference - strategy-wise, I didn't find any improvements.
Yeah, you did, but somehow forgot to link to it or mention how much did you improve it by, sans emulation differences. People familiar with it were mainly those who read the CT thread in 2008.
turska wrote:
Without inichi's demo run, this run would never have been made, but since he had no direct involvement in making this run, I can't list him as a coauthor in good faith.
Excuse me? Effectively you've contributed nothing new to a run that has already been made, publicized, and explained by a different person, and you can't list him as a coauthor in "good faith"? Meanwhile, a little earlier in IRC you had claimed you had no problem with listing inichi as a coauthor. So which is it?
turska wrote:
I considered approaching him about this. Howewer, I didn't see inichi idling on #tasvideos nor had he posted in over two years - in the time it would've taken for him to react, I could already have implemented the run myself.
I am disappointed with the snatch-it-while-it's-hot mentality. Had this submission been made later, exactly what harm would've been done?
turska wrote:
I also highly disagree with idea of certain games or categories being exclusive to certain people. TASing is about the runs themselves, not the particular individuals that happen to work on them.
Barb could use Find Item on all non-quest bosses' corpses, so that effectively increased his MF for council members and Hell cows by a very significant amount.
For those who don't know/remember, inichi has made a test run without memory corruption and mid-save resets, and speculated that more recent glitches and better general optimization could reach 2:30 or so (probably way below that by this point). It was also decided back then that such a "low-glitch" version would be published once/if it was done.
And here is the original version of turska's run. Posting this here because I believe inichi should be at the very least listed as a coauthor, since the only thing that prevented him from submitting it back then was the lack of accepted tools, and turska didn't make any improvements, to my knowledge.
(Actually, I think it would be even better to PM inichi first, asking if he would like to play the run on lsnes himself, but it's too late for that.)
I have a disability that is just bad enough that it makes it very difficult for me to get a job, but not so bad that the government thinks I should get assistance.
Your disability mainly impairs socialization and subjective appraisal, but there are many jobs that don't require much or at all, certainly less than running a charity anyway. Have you considered, say, being a librarian or a statistician?
TheNewTeddy wrote:
I'm just mimicking what others have successfully done.
I expect that the successful others didn't have your disability, so you won't even be able to tell if you're missing something in your mimicry. Mimicking something without understanding why it works and why it may not work for you is not a good idea in general.
I thought my proposition is dedicated to minimize the infair use of rating powers. Let's say, I am a publisher and give everything 0-4 rating because of stupid things. But I have no tasing experience myself and my rates are insanely mood-dependent. My system would minimize my harm. Current can not.
Your system works if you assume that TASers (those with currently published movies in particular) are always fair, unbiased, and their votes never depend on mood, jealousy or other stupid things. Unfortunately, none of these assumptions are true. In all the significant cases of abuse on rating and voting systems thus far the culprits have been TASers. Yes, all of them.
In other words, your system solves one problem but introduces another.
feos wrote:
TAS experience IS a factor, and extremely important one.
I'm pretty sure I never argued otherwise; read the first post again.
Again, what I am against is stratification that would result from active players having significant weight advantage over the rest of the community. It is completely unneeded and only serves ego purposes. For instance, my own credibility in this community is pretty much entirely based on my forum posts. I know how to TAS, and some members here have seen the extent—but I'm easily bored/frustrated by the process and end up choosing not to spend my very limited time on it. I expect that there are many people in the same boat as myself, but if they'd been here long enough and seen enough movies (or made them long enough ago that they'd all gotten obsolete), why should they be put at such a disadvantage? Surely you can't say they can't fairly evaluate a movie?
It should be possible for everybody to eventually attain the same (or at least very similar) default rating weight experienced players have. It will be scaled back by personal vote distribution anyway.
Had rating been institutionalized the same way judging is, I would trust that Aglar is more qualified to evaluate a TAS. But that's why we have at most a dozen judges in a community of thousands, and judges have way more responsibility than normal users: they actually need to watch a lot of movies that other users can safely skip or postpone until much later, they need to properly explain their opinion when they judge, they are expected to be eloquent and moderate in their expressions. Granting benefits without such responsibility would lead to elitism and unfair stratification.
Right now anybody here, even a freshly registered user, can make a clever point and deliver it better than players with dozens of published submissions under their belt. It is important that it remains that way both on the forum and in the rating, but forum posting is a system based on free expression that makes it nearly impervious to abuse. In other words, you can't persuade people verbally without certain effort. Rating system, however, is impersonal and requires no conscious analysis on both ends. The intention of the changes I am proposing aren't to penalize some users and/or give advantage to others, but to make the calculation self-regulating and better protected from low participation issues as well as perfunctory/malevolent behavior.
I'm strictly against uncapped weighing, as it provides some people with unreasonable swaying power. In my opinion the difference between lowest unpenalized class's and the reference class's rating weight should never exceed 3:1 or so.
Also, I think post count or registration date shouldn't count towards weight upon reaching some sensible threshold (100 posts/1 year respectively, or something like that).
A TAS has clear entertainment potential when:
1) it's doing something unexpected, and decisions the player makes aren't obvious;
2) it looks significantly sharper than even the best examples of unassisted play of said game;
3) something interesting happens all the time with little downtime;
4) there is variety in gameplay;
5) you can relate to the gameplay somehow, or at least understand what is being done at a given moment.
That should pretty much cover all of the major reasons for rejection, btw. Rhythm games completely fail #1, #2 and #4, most puzzle games have trouble with #2 and #4, most autoscrollers commonly fail #1 and #3, RPGs' main problem is #3 and #5.
Platformers with complex movement (later Castlevania games, Metroid series, later Mario games, Sonic series, DKC series, Gimmick, Cave Story) or complex glitches (most of the Megaman series, SMB2, SMW, Sonic series again) are somewhat of a privileged genre because they rarely have problem with any of these criteria. Down to business, so to say.
TheNewTeddy wrote:
If I call them out, would they not be offended?
They won't, because they need to be accountable for their decisions if they are to remain judges in the first place.
Cutsceneless encodes have been posted numerous times for several games, including Super Metroid, Metroid Fusion, Kirby's Dream Course, Resident Evil, and probably others I don't remember. At no point they were official publication encodes. I don't see how this is going to be any different.
Actually, I still think scoring makes this game an order of magnitude more spectacular because, instead of going from A to B, more exciting route variation can be seen. But meh, beggars can't be choosers.
