Submission Text Full Submission Page
There are many methods for passing a classic game like Super Mario Bros, for example, warpless and walkathon. The movie I made aimed at a different strategy, to complete this game with the lowest score (500) without using replay, which is still scarce here.

Goals:

  • Complete the game with the lowest score (500)
    • As fast as possible
      • As entertaining as I can

How come 500 is the lowest score?

Good question. Super Mario Bros can be completed without touching any enemies or getting any goods, which few one could imagine I believe. The only necessary kind of points is getting 100 points when you grab the flagpole in each stages.
But getting the lowest score may not be as simple as you think. As a matter of fact, there really are some places where are hard to get through without any points. 4-2, for example. You can get no point either by climbing the vine with the help of the lift or by entering the pipe like I did in this run. And for the big hole in 8-1 that has 2 coins above it, you can hardly survive from that one.
In 1-1, 4-1, 8-1, 8-2, 8-3, you have to wait for the time decreases to 0, or you'll get more than just 100 points on the flagpole, possibly fireworks, too. I did the flagpole glitch everytime as same as always, because it's the fastest way. I have tried to make the flagpole send Mario to the left to end the level, but unfortunately it goes slowlier for some reasons.

A lowest score run can be entertaining

In people's opinions, waiting for the time goes by is kind of boring. No, it can be as entertaining as any other speedruns.
I have performed lots of tricks to keep this movie entertaining all the way. For example, walljumps, moonwalks, wall passing, and hiding from enemies. Those are several skills that are often shown in this movie, there are other tricks that have never shown before in my runs, too.

Most entertaining parts of this run

You don't want to miss these following performances, do you?
  • 1-1: Gaining a jumping mushroom, due to the help of the jumping star
  • 4-1: Walking between 2 spines that were so closed to Mario
  • 8-1: Walljumping backwards and forwards
  • 8-2: Getting the 1UP mushroom upside-down by design
  • 8-3: Playing jokes on hammer brothers
  • A special dance for all in the end of 8-3
A nice snapshot for everyone, hope you like this run!

Nach: This run is a bit shocking. I sat down to watch it thinking 15 minutes is going to be a snooze. Much to my surprise and delight, this run is a lot more exciting than I expected. Mario dances figure eights around enemies as if they weren't even there. Reminds me of Gradius. The first level was very boring, but 4-1 is a lot more exciting with the Spinys raining down. 8-1 is a pure delight. 8-2 and 8-3 are in a league of their own. Playing with the Hammer Bros. is one of the most exciting things I've seen in a TAS. Dancing to the music was appreciated too.
Overall, I think this run provides a lot more entertainment than a standard 5 minute TAS of this game. In terms of meeting its defined goals it also does it well. For the goals in question, speed-wise, this movie will also be hard to beat.
Now the question is, does this deserve publication or not? There is a lot of time seemingly "wasted", and the beginning is lackluster. On the other hand, so are playarounds of other games filled with auto-scrolling. The Judge Guidelines state: "A run for a proposed new branch for a game should offer compelling differences relative to previously published runs of that game.". I think that is undeniable fact in this case. Further: "don't publish an arbitrarily rule-restricted movie just because there are too few movies for that game; doing so may lead to impossible-to-solve 'why A but not B' debates later.". A role of "lowest possible score" is less arbitrary than a lot of other goals we've seen people submit. Accepting this certainly wouldn't be solely because there are too few runs for this game.
Then there's the player guidelines which state: "Please note that we do not accept an indefinite number of variants for any given game. Any more than 3 for a game is very uncommon.". It's not a hard limit, so I can see us bending the rules if a run really deserves it. But does it? This run only has a 40% approval rating.
If we cut out the "perfect" parts of the run such as 1-2, 4-2, and 8-4, we're left with levels which need to "waste time" and provide a lot of entertainment. If we can put 1-1, and the slow parts of 4-1 in one movie, and the rest of it in another movie, I think we'd have a consensus to reject the former and accept the latter as a playaround. As it stands, I can't see this movie being anything more than a concept movie.
So should I reject it based on the former, or accept it as a concept run based on the latter? I'll reserve judgment for a few more days in hope that others will refute pros or cons I listed here. Please comment on these points.

Nach: Thanks for everyone who commented further. It seems the added entertainment to this run is outweighed by the boring sections and the repetitiveness of the entertainment itself. Rejecting.
feos: After thinking for 12 years about this movie and how loaded it is with cool techniques just to burn time, I believe it makes perfect sense to send it to Playground. No I don't plan to unreject anything else until we shrink the queue. Just wanted to move this real quick since it requires no extra work for anyone.

Editor, Active player (466)
Joined: 5/23/2006
Posts: 361
Location: Washington, United States
That was actually a lot more fun to watch than I expected. You certainly stayed active during all of the "waiting for the timer to run down" levels, and I'm pretty sure you managed to cover every single wall glitch in existence. I was really surprised with some of the ways you managed to scale walls vertically, and most of the other highlights you pointed out in the submission text were nice, too (the dancing at the end of 8-3 was great, by the way). I think this would serve as a good concept demo since the goal is unusual and you have to abuse glitches to make it possible. It's also good that the sequence of "waste time" levels is broken up by some standard "race to the finish"-type levels - it really improves the pacing of the run. This gets a Yes vote from me. However, I think a pure "glitchfest" run might be even more entertaining since you could show off even more glitches... something to consider, I guess.
Joined: 11/14/2010
Posts: 9
I really liked the concept of the run, it felt alot like a play-a-round glitchfest, which usually are my favorite TASruns. The idea behind it was charming, but in the back of my mind waiting for the clock to tick down was a tad vexing. I smiled here and there and laughed a bit, but i agree with most of the above comments leaning towards the meh side or no side. (Nice art though, 8-1 was my fav)
Joined: 6/1/2006
Posts: 64
I would like to see a run of the "speed expiation" hack instead. This Mario-with-ADD run was fun, but it wore thin after the first couple levels.
Experienced player (601)
Joined: 10/23/2004
Posts: 706
Flygon wrote:
Easy, make the final flagpole overflow the 999,999 counter.
Perhaps this was intended to be tongue-in-cheek. But this would obviously not be within the spirit of "lowest score." Any reasonable person would include the aggregation of points regardless of the number of times the score rolled over...
Current Project: - Mario Kart 64
Samsara
She/They
Senior Judge, Site Admin, Expert player (2123)
Joined: 11/13/2006
Posts: 2794
Location: Northern California
I'd love to see a true playaround. The tricks are interesting enough to warrant a playaround publication, while being able to collect things and not having to wait for the timer to run out would keep the variety strong throughout. I did like this, however, I'll abstain from voting.
TASvideos Admin and acting Senior Judge 💙 | Cohost
warmCabin wrote:
You shouldn't need a degree in computer science to get into this hobby.
Joined: 11/4/2007
Posts: 1772
Location: Australia, Victoria
Weatherton wrote:
Flygon wrote:
Easy, make the final flagpole overflow the 999,999 counter.
Perhaps this was intended to be tongue-in-cheek. But this would obviously not be within the spirit of "lowest score." Any reasonable person would include the aggregation of points regardless of the number of times the score rolled over...
No, I was being serious. Make the score counter overflow to zero. If it is zero, it is truly zero. It doesn't have to make sense.
Personman
Other
Joined: 4/20/2008
Posts: 465
I guess really there are two categories - "Low Score" and "Fewest Points Obtained". Low Score cares about what the counter says; Fewest Points cares about how much it has incremented. I agree with Flygon that by default, the term "lowest score" means this movie should be obsoleted by any movie that completes the game with the score counter showing a lower number. If the score does wrap to 0, then a movie that does that should obsolete this (though if we really wanted to have YET ANOTHER CATEGORY this could be resubmitted as a "Fewest Points Obtained" run). While I understand the intuition that wrapping the counter "doesn't really" decrease your score, since we as humans and programmers understand how integer overflow works, I submit that from the perspective of the game, it really does. In the same way that it is a rule of SMB that you get fireworks when the timer has certain values, it is a rule (maybe? I don't actually know for sure that score does wrap) that when you get n points when your current points are 999999-n or greater, you lose 999999 points. The score counter is a real value in RAM; if you expect it after a wrap it will have a new, much lower value. You "really have" lost 999999 points, even if this fact is kind of bizarre from the perspective of someone who thought they understood the scoring mechanism of the game up until the moment their score wrapped.
A warb degombs the brangy. Your gitch zanks and leils the warb.
Expert player (2455)
Joined: 12/23/2007
Posts: 822
Flygon wrote:
Weatherton wrote:
Flygon wrote:
Easy, make the final flagpole overflow the 999,999 counter.
Perhaps this was intended to be tongue-in-cheek. But this would obviously not be within the spirit of "lowest score." Any reasonable person would include the aggregation of points regardless of the number of times the score rolled over...
No, I was being serious. Make the score counter overflow to zero. If it is zero, it is truly zero. It doesn't have to make sense.
You see, some Chinese TASer and I have discussed about that, turns out that 64.8% of us think that it's impossible to get the maximum score(9999950, that is, with 7 digits). More important thing, this run I made seems not going to make it according to the vote result, I sincerely hope that most of people would enjoy it, thank you.
Recent projects: SMB warpless TAS (2018), SMB warpless walkathon (2019), SMB something never done before (2019), Extra Mario Bros. (best ending) (2020).
Joined: 9/9/2008
Posts: 20
Location: Texas, USA
When I watched the movie I was afraid that it would get boring after the first level, but I was pleasantly surprised and found myself enjoying the whole thing. I think if there was one more level it would have gotten boring, but as it is, it is entertaining. If I would actually stop being lazy and post more than once a year, I would vote yes.
Editor, Expert player (2316)
Joined: 5/15/2007
Posts: 3856
Location: Germany
You see, some Chinese TASer and I have discussed about that, turns out that 64.8% of us think that it's impossible to get the maximum score(9999950, that is, with 7 digits).
Why not? Use the 1-up trick so you can enter a level infinite times and get points until you have 9999950. I guess you were refering to a theoretical run that didn't use death.
Joined: 8/23/2009
Posts: 5
Location: Colorado Springs
If you roll over the score (which I'm not even sure is possible) to say 000000 then you have a lot more potential with a play around then just ducking, dodging, and ticking down time. The movie is interesting but I don't know if it is really a good objective for TASing. I would vote "meh" but I'm not the most active member of the community. =/
Joined: 11/4/2007
Posts: 1772
Location: Australia, Victoria
Don't be afraid to vote Meh! Everyone is allowed to vote! This is what we're worried about, new people being afraid to vote. Please, don't be afraid!
Former player
Joined: 11/13/2005
Posts: 1587
I saw it till the second pipe and then I really had to stop. The idea is horrible, so I voted no.
Joined: 6/4/2009
Posts: 570
Location: 33°07'41"S, 160°42'04"W
Flygon wrote:
Everyone is allowed to vote!
He has 2 posts (as of now), therefore he's not allowed.
Player (159)
Joined: 5/20/2010
Posts: 295
I didn’t need fast-forward. The run is very artistic. I’ve never seen such a Mario not hurrying in 8-1. It’s very entertaining getting 1-up in 8-2 and dodging hammer in 8-3. I personally more enjoyed than walkathon or something else. Yes from me.
Editor
Joined: 3/31/2010
Posts: 1466
Location: Not playing Puyo Tetris
On the technical side, it's great to see those bugs. On the gameplay side, it's dull. Meh from me. I am fine if it gets published but I won't cry if it doesn't.
When TAS does Quake 1, SDA will declare war. The Prince doth arrive he doth please.
Active player (417)
Joined: 8/22/2008
Posts: 301
Location: Brazil
One of the hardest submissions to vote ever. WTF! First of all: This site deserves more Playarounds with this idea for more games. Congratulations HappyLee for your creativity. Even more in a game without many opportunities for creation. So your main fault is the game choice. Seems to me that you did with most entertainment possible in this very simple game, cause I know you have a great knowledge in SMB. Then you deserve applause. But perhaps not enough to be published anyway. The problem is that I found a little repetitive glitching and longer (10 minutes would be better). Sorry HappyLee. I enjoyed it, but I think it lacks something else to be published here. Trying to help the judges: Meh Vote for it.
AnS
Emulator Coder, Experienced player (724)
Joined: 2/23/2006
Posts: 682
Flygon wrote:
Weatherton wrote:
Flygon wrote:
Easy, make the final flagpole overflow the 999,999 counter.
Perhaps this was intended to be tongue-in-cheek. But this would obviously not be within the spirit of "lowest score." Any reasonable person would include the aggregation of points regardless of the number of times the score rolled over...
No, I was being serious. Make the score counter overflow to zero. If it is zero, it is truly zero. It doesn't have to make sense.
The problem is, even after PlayerScore resets, TopScore remains being high, because the game updates TopScore each frame. Even if at the end you get 0000000 (yes, there's 7 digits, but highest digit is masked by space when it's zero), after returning to title screen you'll see 9999950 or whatever score you had before overflow. That doesn't count as "truly zero"! Here's example movie: http://shedevr.org.ru/temp/sound/smb-score.fm2
Lord_Tom
He/Him
Expert player (3275)
Joined: 5/25/2007
Posts: 399
Location: New England
Definitely the most entertainment I've had in an SMB run for a long time. Given its simplicity and the extent of known bugs, a playaround is where this game should really shine. I agree with many that the goal of "low score" has big negative side-effects and that a shorter run with the same tricks, or an equal length run with a greater store of tricks would be superior. But until such a run appears, I vote yes for this to be published as a playaround, for obsoletion by a more entertaining playaround without reference to the score goal. A further drawback to having the score goal which I don't think I saw mentioned is that you lose opportunity for entertainment in levels where 0 score is possible - 1-2, 4-2 and 8-4 end up being just like the any %. My ideal playaround for this game would show all manner of glitches, probably using some (not all) warps for completion time ~15 minutes. Further, I'd use subtitles to advertise arbitrary (but entertaining) goals for certain levels, e.g. walkathon for whatever -3 level it was (5?) that took the community months to find a solution for. One can't deny, though, that HappyLee knows this engine, and spared no effort with the entertainment, despite the limiting goal!
Twisted_Eye
He/Him
Active player (332)
Joined: 10/17/2005
Posts: 629
Location: Seattle, WA
This was actually fun to watch. The playaround areas at this point were more entertaining than the 'usual' TAS stages. "Time's running out! Better wall jump on this pole for 15 seconds!" You found a lot of fun ways to pass the time. I give this a yes, but only as a playaround entry.
Editor, Experienced player (608)
Joined: 11/8/2010
Posts: 4012
I loved this TAS! It was very entertaining and still managed to complete the goal. I voted Yes! Congratulations, HappyLee!
Joined: 7/25/2007
Posts: 109
It's definitely amusing. But the things about the relative repetitiveness after a while do apply. I'd say this one could be a game-changer. We might need something to handle these situations where it's not good enough to be published, but not bad enough to be cast mercilessly into the pit of grues without a light source (if it's really split like this, that's a sign it should be handled as such).
Joined: 11/4/2007
Posts: 1772
Location: Australia, Victoria
This is why we have the Gruefood Delight.
Experienced player (699)
Joined: 2/19/2006
Posts: 742
Location: Quincy, MA
mmarks wrote:
I really want to see a TAS, as "fastest 999999". Not is if is could you reach that score, but it will be possible?
Honestly, fastest time to reach 9,999,950 would be more entertaining, and likely faster... actually, you could probably roll the score to 0 quicker thaqn what is seen here. ;) I didn't like this idea though. Sorry Happylee!
AnS wrote:
Flygon wrote:
Weatherton wrote:
Flygon wrote:
Easy, make the final flagpole overflow the 999,999 counter.
Perhaps this was intended to be tongue-in-cheek. But this would obviously not be within the spirit of "lowest score." Any reasonable person would include the aggregation of points regardless of the number of times the score rolled over...
No, I was being serious. Make the score counter overflow to zero. If it is zero, it is truly zero. It doesn't have to make sense.
The problem is, even after PlayerScore resets, TopScore remains being high, because the game updates TopScore each frame. Even if at the end you get 0000000 (yes, there's 7 digits, but highest digit is masked by space when it's zero), after returning to title screen you'll see 9999950 or whatever score you had before overflow. That doesn't count as "truly zero"! Here's example movie: http://shedevr.org.ru/temp/sound/smb-score.fm2
Didn't see this... Well, it would be 0 technically... or you could just say "fastest time to 10,000,000pts" which would be more impressive than 0 anyway. haha Also, you could also finish with just 300 point by game overing in world 8 and using the "return to the last world you were in" trick. But That probably would be seen as an in-game "cheat"
Super Mario Bros. console speedrunner - Andrew Gardikis
Editor
Joined: 3/10/2010
Posts: 899
Location: Sweden
I think we have a few submissions with a zero score. They are about 5 sec long each. No points for guessing what happens in them.