Emulator Coder, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Former player
Joined: 10/28/2007
Posts: 1360
Location: The dark horror in the back of your mind
Firstly, it would be a judge (not a publisher) that should weigh in on the matter.
Secondly, I would wait for a decision on whether this run constitutes an acceptable game choice before considering making a new submission.
Start playback of run; go to the point from where you want to continue; Tools -> Movie -> Resume Record from Now.
I would wait for a decision on this run first, though, depending on whether this is considered to be an adequate game choice.
Emulator Coder, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Former player
Joined: 10/28/2007
Posts: 1360
Location: The dark horror in the back of your mind
Wak017 wrote:
Bah. This is improvable. I've been able to save 6 frames on the second stage. I'm not sure I could rack up enough frames to get under 2 mins, but this is definitely improvable.
Do you have a movie file for this? Even an incomplete run showing improvements might contribute to the discussion here.
Emulator Coder, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Former player
Joined: 10/28/2007
Posts: 1360
Location: The dark horror in the back of your mind
Hi, and welcome to the site.
There are several problems with this submission which lead me to believe you may not have read the [wiki Rules]Rules[/wiki] and/or [wiki Guidelines]Guidelines[/wiki] before submitting this.
You initially specified a branch ("princess only") that would lead people to believe this run is of a different game than it is (SMB2u as opposed to SMB1).
The submission starts from SRAM; this is normally disallowed without good reason (and even then normally only with a verification movie for the SRAM).
This run fails to beat even [movie 665]the site's oldest SMB1 warps movie[/movie], not to mention [movie 1715]the most recent[/movie]. Generally speaking, we only accept runs that beat current records.
We do encourage new TASers to continue their work; however you may want to read up on what we normally expect first, and consult with the community in the future before submitting further runs.
Emulator Coder, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Former player
Joined: 10/28/2007
Posts: 1360
Location: The dark horror in the back of your mind
The submission text, paraphrased wrote:
RUN RIGHT into Gruefood FOR JUSTICE!
Seriously, you can run right through enemies. The only remotely interesting part of this run is timing jumps over shuriken, and that's as childishly easy as playing the game itself must be.
Need I say more?
EDIT: By the way, this is supposed to be a trilogy according to the submission text. Where's the third?
Emulator Coder, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Former player
Joined: 10/28/2007
Posts: 1360
Location: The dark horror in the back of your mind
moozooh wrote:
Ah, arguing with you is truly a pleasure.
Noting that where there's a certain amount of respect for logic and your opponents' position could theoretically be better called a debate than an argument would, sadly, be out of the scope of this discussion.
moozooh wrote:
sgrunt wrote:
Let me turn the initial point that prompted that line of discussion upon you, then: What do you consider to be a fast-paced run? I presented a definition earlier which hasn't seriously been challenged, and if there are flaws in it I encourage you to point them out.
There are no flaws per se, because being fast-paced means different things to different people. It may be dependent on anything including but not limited to: rate of actions carried out per second, speed of screen scrolling, character movement speed, enemies AI or rate of attack, required rate of decision-making, and so on. Moreover, in tool-assisted and unassisted conditions these things tend to change, as is often the case with games like Bomberman. What I consider fast-paced is in this sense irrelevant, and I won't even try to come up with an universal definition because I know it won't even work for myself. Instead I rely on a feeling of speed, and that's, while largely indescribable, works well for me.
In regard to this run in particular, I wasn't bored by it, so it's good enough. (I won't rate it highly either, nor be depressed if it's ultimately rejected.) If it were considerably longer, I could see myself being bored, but it's not the case here, so we shouldn't even consider that.
I will agree that there's a certain amount of subjectivity involved here, hence my attempt to lay out a baseline for the purpose of discussion. I'll further note that not being bored by watching a run isn't exactly the same as a run being entertaining - though an argument could be made that the two lie in opposite directions, there's an extensive middle ground there where things are considerably less clear. I would prefer that runs do more to hold viewers' interest rather than doing the bare minimum possible to avoid being boring. (I'll also take the opportunity to note here my shorter-than-average - for site purposes - attention span, so I probably set the bar considerably higher than most for what constitutes "sufficiently entertaining".)
moozooh wrote:
sgrunt wrote:
If you look back at my past track record on submissions of this nature (where I've bothered to comment, at least), I've generally been opposed to their publication for exactly the reasons I'm citing here - that there's little room for technical innovation or entertainment. Games such as Mega Man are a different story, in that there are additional factors at work such as route planning (for the initial stages), weapon selection, and (in may cases) substantial abuse of glitches (a look at the most recently published Mega Man 1 submission being a wonderful illustration of the latter).
But since Mega Man games are at the upper spectrum of entertainment for a relatively simple platformer (mainly due to glitches involved), a valid question would be: should we still publish runs of games that don't allow as much as Mega Man does? Historically the answer to this has been "yes", but what is your opinion and where do you draw the line?
This, again, is a sticky subject. If I, or anyone, had an absolute answer to this, our discussions over submissions like this would be considerably shorter.
I'll take the opportunity to point out, however, that the relative level of complexity of a game, in some cases, can really only come to light under TAS conditions. The best example of this I can think of would be Super Mario Bros, where (in my view) the primary entertainment factor (barring the apparent value that people derive from having played the game themselves and/or recognising it as a very popular game) comes from the large number of glitches that have arisen as the run has progressively been improved over the years. Beyond that, I'm not sure I can comment further on the matter except on a case-by-case basis.
moozooh wrote:
sgrunt wrote:
I'm not referring to anyone else's argument here, and I'm not sure where that notion came from.
From here:
sgrunt wrote:
but as beautifully pointed out above, that's far from the be-all and end-all of technical quality of a given run.
So... whom it was pointed out by, if not Wak or yourself referred to in third person? I should note that OmegaWatcher's request to quote your references would be indeed warranted here.
Sorry - this is a slight miscommunication on my part. I was referring to the opening passage of the technical section of the voting guidelines wiki page, in particular,
Technical rating guidelines wrote:
A common misconception is to think that "technical quality" is a synonym for "frame perfection" (in other words, how optimal the run is). This is not so. Frame perfection is part of what constitutes the technical quality of a run, but only a part.
moozooh wrote:
sgrunt wrote:
If it is a bad criterion, perhaps the page in question needs to be updated. I'm merely citing a suggestion that has been presented there, which, by its presence, nobody has challenged there up until now.
The criterion on the page in question reads "amount of work", not "amount of time", and I hope you agree that the relation there is not quite direct. I also don't see it even suggested anywhere on the page to speculate on the amount of work in the absence of hard data by the submitter. As you know, speculations make for lousy arguments.
sgrunt wrote:
To turn this on its head: if you don't expect that a game is complex enough to warrant more than a modicum of effort to produce a tightly optimised run, how can it provide for a slightly technically interesting run?
Why necessarily a modicum? The amount of work here is relative to the game length, which I hope is understandable. If the game was longer, say 10 minutes, I would expect it to take more than a few days to TAS (but, again, historically it didn't always require so even with more complex games, so I wouldn't use it as a criterion for anything).
Perhaps the thing to do in this case is to consult the author, then, as to how much effort went into the preparation of the run. I'm merely pointing out that there is a hard upper limit to how much work could have gone into it, and using this to place an upper limit on the possible complexity of the game and/or the resulting TAS, which falls short of what I consider to be an adequate standard.
moozooh wrote:
sgrunt wrote:
To carry on with your keyboard analogy, suppose I give you two passages of text to type - one requires two fingers to type, and another that (using normal keyboard positioning) uses all ten. Between these two, which requires more technical skill to carry out?
I'm using the entirety of a keyboard, even if not optimally, but the result is the same.
In that case, I reject your typing for failing to beat known records. :)
Emulator Coder, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Former player
Joined: 10/28/2007
Posts: 1360
Location: The dark horror in the back of your mind
moozooh wrote:
sgrunt wrote:
I've [post 275290]already debunked the possibility of this run being fast-paced[/post].
So you've debunked a subjective notion? :) Or did you debunk this run being fast-paced as per the criteria made up by a single forum member who isn't used to arguing or, indeed, using English? Too early to claim a victory here, try somebody of your own league.
Let me turn the initial point that prompted that line of discussion upon you, then: What do you consider to be a fast-paced run? I presented a definition earlier which hasn't seriously been challenged, and if there are flaws in it I encourage you to point them out. [post 275232]For reference, it was[/post]:
sgrunt wrote:
[...d]escribes runs which require quick reaction times on the part of the player and, arguably, a continual feeling of imminent danger - that one little mistake can cause everything to go horribly wrong.
moozooh wrote:
sgrunt wrote:
Gameplay here consists of, well, running to the right and jumping occasionally, which explicitly fails the "be varied" criterion, and as [post 275232]I've previously noted[/post], the one glitch here does not alter gameplay substantially from normal. Thus, I don't really see how the run fits any of our commonly-defined criteria for entertainment.
More weasel words and appealing to subjective notions. 8-bit platformers in general require little more than holding right and jumping occasionally, simply by their nature. Even the revered Mega Man games consist of exactly that to at least 80% of their length (that isn't consumed by get weapon cutscenes, boss appearances and so on), which is why not everyone likes them despite the glitching. Yet we publish runs of 8-bit platformers at least once a month without failure, and somehow the argument doesn't crop up too often. Why is that? Did they suddenly become complex? Before you pull the "past mistakes don't justify the present" card, are you going to use it the next time somebody TASes another exceedingly simple platformer for MSX, SMS, GB, or NES?
If you look back at my past track record on submissions of this nature (where I've bothered to comment, at least), I've generally been opposed to their publication for exactly the reasons I'm citing here - that there's little room for technical innovation or entertainment. Games such as Mega Man are a different story, in that there are additional factors at work such as route planning (for the initial stages), weapon selection, and (in may cases) substantial abuse of glitches (a look at the most recently published Mega Man 1 submission being a wonderful illustration of the latter). The stock entertainment value of those games may not be very high on their own, but the possibility technical complexity present therein greatly aids the viewing experience of those runs.
moozooh wrote:
sgrunt wrote:
I will grant that the run is probably well-optimised, but as beautifully pointed out above, that's far from the be-all and end-all of technical quality of a given run. This run was thrown together in less than two days in response to [submission 3171]an earlier submission[/submission], so I can't really see that any special tool work would have been done for this run, or that a significant amount of effort was put into its creation.
No, that's a bad, bad argument. Referring to Wak's statement here is grasping for a straw that wouldn't even matter had this submission not been controversial. While his words supposedly come from a personal (and likely supported by hard data) insight, they are very very general and hold little weight, so using it to back up your own argument is naive. "Look, that guy says this run is very improvable, so it must be true!" See? That's how your argument looks. Until Wak has presented his improvement, it effectively doesn't exist, and this submission should be judged on its own merits. And saying that a run is improvable is like saying nothing because any run is improvable and it's not a secret to anybody.
I'm not referring to anyone else's argument here, and I'm not sure where that notion came from. I did not mention anything about the run possibly being improvable in this line of argument. Regardless of the possibility of an improvement or not, the level of possible technical merit of this run is low by nature of the game.
moozooh wrote:
As for the time required to make a run, it's a very bad criterion as well because you have no way to appraise that, and, moreover, shouldn't. People like AngerFist, Nitsuja, JXQ, and other TASers have been known for working extremely quick while maintaining solid quality, and so far you haven't proved it to be otherwise.
If it is a bad criterion, perhaps the page in question needs to be updated. I'm merely citing a suggestion that has been presented there, which, by its presence, nobody has challenged there up until now.
moozooh wrote:
And keep in mind that it's a 2-minute long platformer. How complex can that possibly be to take more than a couple days of decent work?
To turn this on its head: if you don't expect that a game is complex enough to warrant more than a modicum of effort to produce a tightly optimised run, how can it provide for a slightly technically interesting run?
moozooh wrote:
sgrunt wrote:
Further, technique here basically consists of "determine which frame to press jump on", unless I am very much mistaken about how this game is supposed to work. In addition, as warned against at the very end, this is a game which is exceedingly straightforward, requires no route planning, and showcases a grand total of one glitch which does not influence gameplay significantly.
You have not only described most of the simple platformers, but also the process of TASing in general. Indeed, it basically consists of determining which frame to press a button on, which in case with platformers is mostly jump and occasionally attack, which, mind you, is used here as well (to pick up baby Moses, for one). That's like saying that your words aren't significant because you type them up with two fingers and not ten.
In many cases, TASes require more than figuring out when to best press one or two buttons, and require more than a glance to get the best sense of timing of when to press one of those buttons. Games where there are more variables (say, additional buttons) to consider require more thought to be put into optimising them and thus allow for a greater degree of technical accomplishment.
To carry on with your keyboard analogy, suppose I give you two passages of text to type - one requires two fingers to type, and another that (using normal keyboard positioning) uses all ten. Between these two, which requires more technical skill to carry out?
moozooh wrote:
sgrunt wrote:
In other words, what we have here is a game that fails almost every possible criterion set out by the site for being entertaining or technically interesting. How this can translate into being called "high quality" is beyond me.
Ok, here's some more challenge for you. Do you bring up this argument in submissions that are improvements of already published runs that fail the same criteria as well? Do you also say they aren't high quality and vote No on them, or is this only specific to submissions of new games.
As a rule, yes, with the caveat that there being a run published already is generally an indicator that the technical/entertainment quality of a run is sufficient to warrant publication (there are exceptions to this, such as Combatribes, as I've brought up previously). If I see a sharp drop in technical or entertainment quality, I will argue against a run being accepted (the current Mario 64 0-star makes for a good example on the entertainment front).
Emulator Coder, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Former player
Joined: 10/28/2007
Posts: 1360
Location: The dark horror in the back of your mind
moozooh wrote:
While I admire sgrunt's arguing skills, there's a hole in this argument here.
sgrunt wrote:
It's not the TAS itself that would be considered shameful. As [wiki WelcomeToTASVideos]noted elsewhere[/wiki] (emphasis mine),
Site mission statement wrote:
TASvideos.org is committed to providing the best in tool-assisted speedruns and superhuman play. Our runs are held to high standards, and only high quality runs will be published on the site.
The run itself is high quality: it's indeed tightly optimized. The play is superhuman: there is absolute precision even though the controls are awful, there's complete disregard for danger, glitch abuse, and all that. It's the game that's bad, but the snippet you've quoted says nothing about that.
Thus, there is nothing in this submission that openly contradicts the mission statement, you're just filling in the blanks using your interpretation of it.
This is a sticky issue: what constitutes a "high quality" run?
If you go by the site's normal rating criteria, good run quality stems from two components: entertainment value and technical quality. Conveniently enough, we have [wiki VotingGuidelines]a wiki page indicating what each of these is supposed to mean[/wiki].
Let's have a look at each of these in turn:
The wiki, on entertainment value (emphasis in original) wrote:
While the entertainment level of a TAS is somewhat subjective, there are a few principles that most of our players and viewers have agreed upon that make for runs with high entertainment.
An entertaining run should:
Be fast-paced. If it takes five minutes for anything to happen, nobody will want to watch your run. Games with fast characters are well-suited for this.
Be varied. Watching a character do little more than run to the right and jump occasionally is not entertaining. Generally, the more possibilities for what your character can do at any given time, and the more of them that are used, the better
Do the unexpected. Abuse of glitches and otherwise causing the game to perform in unexpected ways makes for far more interesting gameplay.
I've [post 275290]already debunked the possibility of this run being fast-paced[/post]. Gameplay here consists of, well, running to the right and jumping occasionally, which explicitly fails the "be varied" criterion, and as [post 275232]I've previously noted[/post], the one glitch here does not alter gameplay substantially from normal. Thus, I don't really see how the run fits any of our commonly-defined criteria for entertainment.
The wiki, on technical merit (emphasis in original) wrote:
The technical rating of a TAS should reflect a number of technical qualities about the run itself and how it has been made. It's important to understand that there is no one single feature which determines the technical quality, but that it's the sum of many different aspects. A common misconception is to think that "technical quality" is a synonym for "frame perfection" (in other words, how optimal the run is). This is not so. Frame perfection is part of what constitutes the technical quality of a run, but only a part.
These are things which should be considered when rating a TAS for its technical quality (note that this list is not comprehensive, and every TAS should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis):
Frame perfection: How frame-perfect is it? Are there known improvements or obvious flaws?
Technique: What kind of TASing techniques does the author use in his run? For example, does he manipulate luck heavily, abuse bugs or level design flaws in the game for shortcuts, use close approach collision abuse, maneuvers that reduce lag, etc?
Tools: What kind of tools did the author use? Did he use eg. Lua scripting for something useful? Memory watching? Decompiling the game ROM? Did he perhaps even write his own tools, such as bots?
Amount of work: How much work was necessary to make the TAS? For example, was a considerable amount of background research (such as route planning or extensive RNG reverse engineering) necessary before even starting the run?
Note that not all games are suitable for a TAS with perfect technical rating, similarly to how not all games are suitable for a perfect entertainment rating. Some games simply don't lend themselves for extensive technical achievements (eg. if they are too simple or straightforward, with no route planning, exploitable bugs, etc.)
I will grant that the run is probably well-optimised, but as beautifully pointed out above, that's far from the be-all and end-all of technical quality of a given run. This run was thrown together in less than two days in response to [submission 3171]an earlier submission[/submission], so I can't really see that any special tool work would have been done for this run, or that a significant amount of effort was put into its creation. Further, technique here basically consists of "determine which frame to press jump on", unless I am very much mistaken about how this game is supposed to work. In addition, as warned against at the very end, this is a game which is exceedingly straightforward, requires no route planning, and showcases a grand total of one glitch which does not influence gameplay significantly.
In other words, what we have here is a game that fails almost every possible criterion set out by the site for being entertaining or technically interesting. How this can translate into being called "high quality" is beyond me.
Emulator Coder, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Former player
Joined: 10/28/2007
Posts: 1360
Location: The dark horror in the back of your mind
I see the potential here for a good TAS (sequences such as the asteroid breaking in Stage 5 show abilities that obviously couldn't be done unassisted), but I feel it's lacking polish here and there. There are times where you apparently waste shots (the stage 6 boss is a prime example of this), take apparently needless hits you could have dodged (such as from the 'encircling' enemies on stage 3), let the ship stand still during several breaks in the action where you could be performing movements, and don't appear to kill some enemies as quickly as possible. You've also admitted that your weapon choices could probably be improved.
I will give this a Meh, as I think this is a good starting point for a run for this game - it's just not all the way there yet, and I hope you will give it another go incorporating your own suggestions and some of the items above.
Emulator Coder, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Former player
Joined: 10/28/2007
Posts: 1360
Location: The dark horror in the back of your mind
<Flygon> I'm just trying to fix the DNS right now
*** Flygon has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
<Grunt> Apparently, that wasn't the right way to fix it.
*** Flygon has joined #tasvideos
<Flygon> That didn't work
Note that damage is indeed taken in that run, as there are circumstances where it does save time.
OmegaWatcher wrote:
The way you said,it seems all games in this site shold take damage to save time, even where the game doesn't work that way
If damage can be taken to save time, there had best be a very good reason for not saving that time if it is not.
OmegaWatcher wrote:
Not every game is Mega Man 2 or Super Mario 64, you know...
Very true. Not every game is technically complex enough to make good use of the extremely game-breaking glitches present in the most recent versions of those run, where gameplay is significantly altered to the point of little resembling normal gameplay and looks decidedly superhuman. The one glitch present here pales in comparison, as I've previously noted.
OmegaWatcher wrote:
...wow, now you're generalising for the sake of generalising. You took joke submissions and menu debugs to make a point. TASes made without an purpose besides giving a chucke.
You presented 11 TASes under 2 minutes. The site published more than 30.
First, [submission 2602]not all[/submission] [submission 2557]short[/submission] [submission 2997]submissions[/submission] [submission 2906]are[/submission] [submission 2896]joke[/submission] [submission 2085]submissions[/submission]. Second, at time of writing, we have 2485 published/accepted submissions and 1313 rejected/cancelled submissions. That's a ratio of 1.89:1. Through some database magic, I can similarly inform you that there are 71 published/accepted submissions with a length under two minutes, and 159 cancelled/rejected, for a ratio of 0.45:1 - much less than average. This negates both your new point and your apparent original argument related to length of the run.
OmegaWatcher wrote:
Worst part? That doesn't prove anything. At at. That's part of a point in the next part of the sentence, that got cut out for no good reason.
At what point did you bring this up again? I'll note that you did respond to at least one other point in my replies to your original line of argument, so I can assume you did read the rest of it.
OmegaWatcher wrote:
Defining fast paced: Non-stop running, from enemies, hazards, glitches. It's under 2 minutes because it's fast. Hence, fast paced. Not everyone runs just like Sonic.
[movie 1451]Here is a published movie that fits your criteria[/movie] (barring the "under 2 minutes" portion). [submission 2331]Here is a submission[/submission] barely over two minutes and fits the rest of your criteria. [submission 2085]Here is another submission[/submission], which is even under two minutes.
It may just be me, but I do not think any of the above can be considered fast-paced.
OmegaWatcher wrote:
I'll try to explain better. The best way to overcome your mistakes is to fix them. If exclusion is not an option, the community should make a new submission, making it better and fixing the mistake.
If the mistake is "accepted a run of a poorly-suited-for-TASing game", can it still be considered a mistake to accept another, different, poorly-suited-for-TASing game? If so, we can (and should) prevent such a mistake from happening again, which was the point of my bringing up this line of argument.
OmegaWatcher wrote:
I tried to be all poetic last post about this, guess it didn't work =(
I could say this is because that wasn't the last post, but that would be a little too snide even for me. ;)
Emulator Coder, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Former player
Joined: 10/28/2007
Posts: 1360
Location: The dark horror in the back of your mind
Warp wrote:
Can you consider a TAS embarrassing if it's just the game itself that is simplistic, straightforward and doesn't lend itself to marvelous technical achievements?
It's not the TAS itself that would be considered shameful. As [wiki WelcomeToTASVideos]noted elsewhere[/wiki] (emphasis mine),
Site mission statement wrote:
TASvideos.org is committed to providing the best in tool-assisted speedruns and superhuman play. Our runs are held to high standards, and only high quality runs will be published on the site.
Accepting a run which doesn't live up to our expectations for high technical quality, whether by incompetence on the part of the runner or merely by selecting a game which just doesn't have sufficient complexity to showcase the technical intricacies which we're looking for (which are normally flagged as being a bad game choice, and which I'm arguing this run falls into), is something I would consider to be against one of the site's stated principles, and would be viewed as shameful by most (inside or outside) observers.
Wak017 wrote:
Yes vote for TASing a VERY bad game.
sgrunt wrote:
Come on, you didn't take the worst of the worst, you took WORSE examples there. I think it's more fair to compare this game to Deadly Towers, or Milon's Secret Castle, or even Dragon's Lair.
I'm afraid if you were a judge, you would only accept most popular or best rated games, or only the games you have played?
I cannot help but agree with the rejected submissions you linked there, and I'm a pro-hater of YHTBTR myself, and I still agree that Bible game is a bad game, but yet if rejecting this run for bad game choice, I wouldn't know where to set the bar. Probably much higher than lots of games on the site right now.
Funnily enough, this is not at all the point I was making - I was pointing out, contrary to what was stated, that "it was short" does not constitute a valid argument for accepting a game. That said, I can't help but point out the hypocrisy of your two statements: "I like this run because the game was very bad" vs. "Those games are very bad and should have been rejected", not to mention your later statement that "a lot of the very bad games on this site should not have been published in the first place".
Further, nowhere did I state that I solely like runs of games that are popular. There are [movie 1236]runs[/movie] [movie 1451]of[/movie] [movie 1145]relatively[/movie] [movie 1307]obscure[/movie] [movie 1717]titles[/movie] that I enjoy greatly (note also that I have not played any of the games in question); in each of those cases the run either demonstrates something unique about the game or gameplay or obvious superhuman playing ability. Neither of those is evidenced at all here.
Is this run really sufficiently entertaining that we can overlook its negligible technical value, or technically interesting enough to overlook it being boring to (at least a large minority of) viewers, both of which could conceivably lead to a run getting accepted? As I've argued, neither of these is the case and the run should be rejected.
Emulator Coder, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Former player
Joined: 10/28/2007
Posts: 1360
Location: The dark horror in the back of your mind
OmegaWatcher wrote:
Gee, you could at least quote me or Warp... It could help the discussion, you know...
If I can capture the essence of your argument, is an exact quotation necessary?
OmegaWatcher wrote:
"completely avoiding any contact with enemies[...]"
Is it much of a technical challenge to pull this off? Given the absurdly simple gameplay, I submit that it is not. Further, as a rule, the site audience generally prefers movies making creative use of taking damage to save time rather than strict no-damage runs.
OmegaWatcher wrote:
"using glitches to finish the game"
I count one glitch; did you see more than one? With respect to the one glitch, is it a significant time saver? [submission 3171]By way of comparison[/submission], it is not. Does it significantly alter gameplay? Seeing as the result is merely to let the player character continue running to the right with slightly less impediment, it is not. Does the glitch, therefore, have significant technical merit? I submit that it does not.
OmegaWatcher wrote:
Define "fast paced". Usually that describes runs which require quick reaction times on the part of the player and, arguably, a continual feeling of imminent danger - that one little mistake can cause everything to go horribly wrong. Perhaps it's just me, but I don't sense that here.
OmegaWatcher wrote:
and uses glitches
See above discussion of the one glitch of which I'm aware.
OmegaWatcher wrote:
Also, it's far from being the worst game ever TASed.
I repeat,
sgrunt wrote:
I also cannot pass up the opportunity to quote the oft-stated maxim around here that making a mistake in the site's past does not excuse making it again in the present.
There have been [movie 230]runs accepted[/movie] [movie 363]under dubious[/movie] [movie 1646]circumstances[/movie] before; the point of my bringing this up is that if a poor quality run is accepted, the community will tend to look upon this with shame and embarrassment (just look at the general reception the first of those movies has had in the time since it's been published).
I accept that I'm not exactly the easiest person around here to please (just look at the average entertainment rating to give runs), but I can't think of a single redeeming characteristic that this run puts forward that would stand up to the judges' careful scrutiny.
Emulator Coder, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Former player
Joined: 10/28/2007
Posts: 1360
Location: The dark horror in the back of your mind
I've just created two new forums to handle the large amount of discussion this is causing.
This thread, as you can tell, is now in the forum to track tool development (I suggest starting a new thread to track current Hourglass development). There's also a forum for discussing specific Windows games, which I'll be moving threads to shortly.
Have fun.
Emulator Coder, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Former player
Joined: 10/28/2007
Posts: 1360
Location: The dark horror in the back of your mind
The argument has been raised that "other TASes are less entertaining than this one that have been published".
Normally, a boring TAS would need to have at least a modicum of technical merit to be even considered for acceptance (and, conversely, a run with less-than-average technical merit would need to be supremely entertaining to be considered for publication).
I see neither entertainment nor technical merit (or, indeed, the possibility for either) here, so I do not understand how this can be considered for publication in any sense.
I also cannot pass up the opportunity to quote the oft-stated maxim around here that making a mistake in the site's past does not excuse making it again in the present.
Emulator Coder, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Former player
Joined: 10/28/2007
Posts: 1360
Location: The dark horror in the back of your mind
The only thing this run is lacking is more "Jonasan! Sharotto!"
I'm surprised that this much time could be saved - I guess this is what happens when glitch discovery marches on.
Yes vote.
Emulator Coder, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Former player
Joined: 10/28/2007
Posts: 1360
Location: The dark horror in the back of your mind
Wait, we have another submission of this now?
Great. The last thing we need is framewarring over lousy games again. (Raise your hand if Battle Chess causes you fear...)
My [post 274841]earlier reasoning[/post] applies, and I vote no.
Emulator Coder, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Former player
Joined: 10/28/2007
Posts: 1360
Location: The dark horror in the back of your mind
The md5sum of the original image I patched to get this to run in the emulator is 21f3e98df4780ee1c667b84e57d88675, and the resulting patched image has one of 937d6f3262d5c89a2b1b208a250cf444.
The md5sum of the patch itself is fd0ffea29fa7ce93ce5badb786052010.
If those don't check out for you, perhaps you need to find a different image / patch?
Emulator Coder, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Former player
Joined: 10/28/2007
Posts: 1360
Location: The dark horror in the back of your mind
Per the [wiki Rules]Rules[/wiki],
Rules wrote:
Hacked games are allowed for submission. However, they go through more scrutiny than other games. This is because the hack itself is under judgment. It must be a quality hack and have an audience following. It must be a quality TAS on its own merit but also must show something interesting compared to other games of the same game engine.
There are about three things I can spot here that look unique relative to the other Super Metroid runs ([movie 1368]of which[/movie] [movie 1195]there are[/movie] [movie 1270]an abundance[/movie], including [movie 1651]another hack[/movie], not to mention [submission 2136]at least[/submission] [submission 2449]four submissions[/submission] [submission 2731]showing alternate[/submission] [submission 3023]routes/versions[/submission] and [submission 2635]another hack submission[/submission] which were rejected): the warp area (possibly the only real unique feature of this hack), the X-Ray/water trick to preserve a Shinespark charge, and something else which escapes me (which I'll go back and add if I remember what it was).
In lieu of actual original content besides the above, we have questionable, low-visibility recolours (just look at the suggested screenshot above), a handful of rooms reused from the original game, silly-looking sprite-swaps of bosses, and seemingly meaningless renaming of items.
In essence, I found this too much of a pain on the eyes to watch and not enough original content here relative to the glut of other Super Metroid runs on the site to warrant enduring that.
I vote No.
