I'd say early Charge has more untapped potential which hasn't been discovered yet. It will likely only be discovered in the process of actually making the TAS. If anything, it doesn't seem like it will cost any tangible amount of time even if it turns out to be the wrong choice...
Is the PSX version sufficiently different from the GBA version? If so they could as well coexist, though I agree that the goal should indeed be different.
I remember being disappointed by the extremely pedestrian solution to most of the stages in the old 96-exit run, which was flying over/under them in a straight line, but at least it resembled normal gameplay somewhat, and Mario flew through different stages. This new strategy is like the opposite extreme that is shorter but not even a little bit more fun to watch. The novelty of this trick wears off pretty quick, and what you're left with is nonsensical action repeated with little—if any—variation. :(
Though I admit, the way you ended Outrageous in that test run made me smile a bit.
Seriously now? Anthropic principle is a philosophical construct that merely speculates on the very particular input that lead to a very particular end result, and looks at it from a particular side—that it's the input that fit the end result, i.e. humans, not the other way around. It says so right there in the article. In the lack of other input data (different fundamental constants, for example) and other end results (solid, tangible proof of extraterrestrial life) it's just something to ponder upon when sapping tea with crackers, not to use as a proof or evidence or and kind of solid argument.
In other words, we have no way of knowing what life would look like if something was (slightly) different. We have no way of knowing if life would or would not exist if something was (slightly) different. It is impossible to prove or disprove.
Excellent! Adding Carl to the team will surely speed up the process, seeing how quick he did away with the any%. :)
I already envision where improvements from walljumps will be, gonna be awesome.
You can also charge it while in morphed form by holding down, IIRC, that way the bombs fly farther. No particular application to that, as far as I'm aware, although a possible application would be a reasonably long morphball tunnel ending with a bomb block and the player having Charge beam and no spare powerbombs. To be honest, I don't remember anything like that in typical SM routes.
Go to Options -> Input -> Customize all commands, set up the frame advance key in a way so that it's comfortable to press it when other keys are pressed (I prefer right ctrl; I press it with my thumb while the other fingers are on arrow keys).
To use it, hold keys you would like to have pressed on the next frame and press frame advance once. What happens is that the emulator registers all the keys you have held as "pressed" on that frame.
The result won't be immediately obvious, as many games won't react to the presses immediately (there is usually a lag of 1 to 4 frames), and some need certain keys to be held for several frames consecutively to properly execute the in-game action. At some point you will have to memorize or write down some of the simple sequences that give the desired result, such as: "hold jump for three frames to jump up a 16 pixel high block", "press fire every third frame to shoot as quickly as possible", etc.
Try with something like 15%-25% first to get the feel of playing in slow motion, then move on to frame advance; that is, moving one frame at a time. It's more convenient than 6%, and more precise as well: it only advances when you want it to.
Don't worry about inaccuracy, it's inevitable. Your job is to gradually minimize it until it isn't noticeable anymore, or until your tools are too inaccurate. At that point you should switch to more accurate tools.
Ok, then start recording (Tools -> Movie -> Record new movie). Save a state (Shift+F1 by default) before doing something, load a state (F1) if you didn't succeed. There, you're already TASing, and the movie you're recording will only contain the latest changes you make to the playthrough.
The quality of your TAS is determined entirely by the standards you will set yourself. The more you will to go back and polish its inaccuracies, the smaller these inaccuracies are and the more new tricks you're willing to find, the better your TAS will be.
Find a ROM of a game you want to TAS, load it into VBA. Make sure everything works as expected. Set up the controls and such. Try playing the game.
Report here when you're done, and we'll discuss the next steps.
A ROM is a file that represents a certain game cartridge. To play Super Mario Bros on a NES emulator FCEUX you will need to load a Super Mario Bros ROM (called "Super Mario Bros. (JU) [!].nes" or something like that) into it.
Also, sharing these is illegal, so we can't distribute links to ROMs on the forums.
How does one arbitrarily decide what is "extreme"?
It is a very subjective notion, yes, but it is very easy to use in a case like this. Pretty much all of the game is skipped, and normally it doesn't allow that. It really is obvious when you're not thinking in assembly code. The glitch itself may not be extreme, but the result is.
In this sense it doesn't matter what exactly caused the game to end so soon (vast majority of the users won't care much about technical details, as usual, let alone understand them), so I don't think tying the branch name to a particular method of glitching makes much sense. Just "glitched" works just as well, and doesn't close the doors to other similarly severe potential exploits. Things tend to get wonky when you try to define something that is completely subjective with absolute and/or objective terms, such as numbers, percentages, and so on. There are too many instances where it doesn't work as intended.
Suppose we have a terrible emulator that wreaks all sorts of havoc on the gameplay. (I'm having a little trouble thinking up examples, but let's say the RNG is inaccurate, text boxes don't load properly, and the game's intro sequence doesn't load properly and is skipped.) For the purposes of publishing a run, it is irrelevant that it isn't console-accurate but rather that this emulator is the standard for TASVideos.
It was never supposed to be any close to this, and, to be honest, I was quite miffed DeSmuME was used as soon as it was (really, we could have waited another couple months for a much better version that came out in that time). In order to exploit a game and its code we need for it to be interpreted and run correctly, and for that we need correct emulation that doesn't introduce artifacts of its own.
Bobo the King wrote:
Our goal, as I see it, is to compare TASes with other TASes, not TASes with unassisted speedruns (not directly, at least).
The original notion has been misunderstood throughout the years since its original proclamation somewhere in 2004. Yes, we do want TASes to be comparable to unassisted play. No, we don't want TASes to compete with unassisted play.
TASes are more than a self-contained game-related art form; you need to think more global than that. Being comparable makes either kind of speedruns relevant to both parties, involving more people and providing a common benefit. Sticking them in the same league is, of course, pointless, but you need to understand the difference. Making them incomparable due to artifacts of emulation is not a way out of anything... whatever needs one to begin with.
creaothceann wrote:
Or you could just switch to bsnes (or SSNES, or libsnes with the SNES9x interface) and be done with this issue.
Wait... Really, we can just switch to a bsnes core with Snes9x GUI? Why haven't we done that yet? :o
It's like... we have a delicious cake already baked for us, and we just ignore it.
From: favourgoodluck14@yahoo.com (0ooooooooooogoodf@att.net)
To: undisclosed recipients
Hello
My name is miss favour,
I will like to have a mutual relationship with you,
there is something crucial i will like to share with you
take care and lots of love,
please don't mind the distance and color
it has nothing to do with love
God bless you
favour.
I find it mildly humorous, especially the name (note how it's in lowercase).
This will be somewhat harsh; bear with me.
DarkKobold wrote:
You totally ignored the second part of the quote, which is ironically still included. "all Super Metroid Submissions by skilled SM tasers are awesome." A 17% run would be awesome. A 36% run would be awesome. A 69% (heh, heh) run would be awesome. All of the runs hero of the day listed were considered awesome, and had good feedback. So yes, I do want a limit on the "awesome." I'd rather not see a run for each percentage point or route possible through Super Metroid.
This argument is full of holes that still don't make sense, I rate it 6.0/1.5.
Firstly, if the runs were considered awesome, that's for a reason; the reason is them being awesome. Then, Super Metroid has been a very contested game here, which eventually lead to the amount of optimization most games are yet to see even in theory. Each of those awesome runs took the authors many months to bring them up to standard, and I'm talking months by skilled SM TASers. You're basing your point on something people are never going to do anyway.
DarkKobold wrote:
I see three arguments against multiple categories:
The first is the obvious slippery slope argument. Given that any route through Super Metroid could be considered entertaining, where do we draw the line? This is not a Super Metroid fansite, nor should it be.
Perhaps the concept is dated, but the site was predicated on having the best quality, most up-to-date runs on the site. The more branches to a game, the less likely it is for each branch to get a movie that uses the most recent tricks and findings. Thus, if we accepted all 9 SM categories, then over time, the majority would be woefully out of date. The end result is a muddy mess of movies, with the user not sure which is the best quality.
You need to have something better than slippery slopes if you want to keep making good decisions in life, and on this site in particular. They are recognized as a fallacy for a reason. Fallacy means something that doesn't hold; something that is false.
But this particular quote presents something that is even worse, that is, failure to analyze things and put them into perspective. I'll elaborate.
1. You evidently don't realize how optimized the recent runs are. Try improving any run that isn't Saturn's Ice Beam 14% (the one that had tricks excluded), and tell me when you manage to gain your first second. Chances are, you won't manage to get that far.
The runs are nothing close to "woefully out of date", and won't be until many relevant new tricks are found. Which, as time goes, is progressively harder to do; there was approximately one relevant trick introduced since the two year old T&K's any%; that trick was what Maridia here was based upon in this run.
You should kinda know this if you claim this movie for judgment. You could do your own research; you're a scientist after all.
2. Keeping in mind the above, Super Metroid has become completely inaccessible to newcomers. By keeping branches closer to the minimum you keep possible improvements closer to the minimum. After the experienced TASers leave the scene, who will keep the runs up to date, you? How will you encourage newcomers to TAS this game? How will you keep the flow of new runs coming? Let's hear your plan.
I want to reiterate once expressed point that being improvable is, in perspective, a good thing for the site: it keeps the potential for new versions and possibly even greater improvements that wouldn't have been made if a movie was considered flawless. Only best of the best may even consider tackling flawless movies. Most don't bother. The worst thing you can have at TASVideos is players not bothering.
I would also like to point out that Saturn, despite all the scorn associated with him, actually helps pushing this game further, and I applaud him for trying something that isn't as conventional as the rest. That is what you should want—you should want more unconventional stuff on the site; template thinking doesn't do a good job of keeping people excited, and on TASVideos we're kinda supposed to think outside the box—not forcefully shove things into the box.
3. The Super Metroid fansite argument. Probably the most hilarious—er, fallacious one, as less than 1% of published movies on the site are Super Metroid. In fact, it would be less than 1% even if all nine categories would be published. There are currently 809 games featured on the site that aren't Super Metroid. Rating this argument 7.0/0.0.
Super Metroid runs are being produced, despite the obvious effort involved, because that's what players want. They are watched because that's what the audience wants. You can't change one or the other, you can either adapt to both or not; now guess which one makes sense to do.
DarkKobold wrote:
Finally, many users have complained over the years that the site focuses far too much on popular games, and less popular games get ignored.
Well, then don't ignore less popular games, duh! What you're proposing is essentially ignoring something else instead, while nobody asked you—or anybody else for that matter—to ignore anything. Don't look for things to ignore! (My god, I don't believe I have to spell this out, this is funny and sad at the same time.)
If you want to solve this problem, encourage people to try new games (I remember the idea of making a TAS tutorial application floating around a couple years ago, maybe it should be considered once again?). Do some motivational work. Limiting the amount of categories has never solved this problem; it only introduced more problems.
Finally, I find it very strange that you formulate solutions negatively: through limitation, restriction, prohibition, and so on. Are you such a negative man or anything? Your field of education should point you to the fact that these things don't work remotely as well as the positivist approach, and a good portion of the time they don't work at all.
