Where exactly would you draw the line for Super Metroid runs?
(Glitched = Out of Bounds used.)
We have:
100%, Unglitched, Real Time
Any%, Glitched, Real Time (also low%)
Any%, Unglitched, In-Game
Any%, Unglitched, Real Time,
Btw, I have always had the opinion that having different categories for the in-game time and the real-time is a bad idea. The two runs are not significantly different to warrant such an artificial distinction. IMO when counting runtime, there should be only one measurement: The same one as with all the other runs, ie. real time.
At the time I didn't understand why it was seen fit to have it split into two categories in this way, and I still don't understand it.
As I commented in the SM submission thread, I suggest changing the four Super Metroid categories to the following:
1) Fastest completion. (As it happens, this is also the lowest-% completion, but that's not very relevant.)
2) Fastest completion without using the save corruption glitch.
3) Lowest-% completion without using the save corruption glitch. (AFAIK this would be 14%)
4) Fastest 100% completion. (Preferably without abusing the save corruption glitch.)
There would still be 4 categories, but I think there would be more variety like this, and the distinction between the categories feels more natural and logical.
At the time I didn't understand why it was seen fit to have it split into two categories in this way, and I still don't understand it.
I seem to recall that it was because the (ingame) run was very, very well received. I agree though that it was probably not for the better to do so, and I never fought to get it published (I'm still thankful that it happened though, as it was my first publication).
Why not give all suggested submissions a chance? If they are doomed to feed the grue anyway, you judges may state your reasoning here.
<klmz> it reminds me of that people used to keep quoting adelikat's IRC statements in the old good days
<adelikat> no doubt
<adelikat> klmz, they still do
I suggest the next "wave" of revive grue be a bit latter... when all revived one are finish re-judging... the bench is somehow overloading those days lol
Kirkq:
Keep in mind that my 14% aims for realtime only. The ingame time goal was just to get a 0:27 clock display, regardless of the seconds, which I could satisfy without any sacrifices in realtime in the end.
As for the multiple category issue, here is my opinion on that very same one mentioned some time ago, with all the pointless ingame/realtime variations just like you stated. Hope you don't mind when I quote it instead of writing the same stuff again:
Saturn wrote:
I actually agree that in-game runs are not really necessary in the end. The only exception for this category is the any%, because it allows to collect the Plasma Beam and therefore makes the run more entertaining to watch overall, due to the much faster boss fights and more variety through the new items.
100% in-game is pointless, since the quicker boss fights and the high variety are still there, no matter of your aim. It doesn't make the any% in-game obsolete though, because it's much longer and with alot more interruptions.
14%/6% in-game is pointless as well, for the very same reasons as the 100%: no route change, equal variety and boss duration no matter what.
100% glitched and saves the animals is also pointless. The latter is obvious by itself (99,9% same run until the escape), the glitched is pointless due to the 6% run where it has the most solid purpose. It would also kind of destroy the meaning of a 100% run: to show off everything the game has to offer, which includes bosses in first place that would be partly skipped otherwise.
The 14% Speedbooster route is at least one minute slower than the Ice route, so a separate category makes no sense as well, but it would still be a great addition to the description of the 14% Ice route run if that category would exist.
Full Map completion makes no sense as well, being a run form without a truly solid goal.
In the end, there are only 5 (if counting the "legit" any% runs as one) truly unique categories with solid goals for this game that would be worth a addition:
* Any% - due to the major difference both, real- and ingame oriented
* 100% realtime - For obvious reasons, to show off everything the game has to offer
* Low% / 14% realtime - due to it's uniqueness and the high difficulty because of the minimal equipment, making it a very suitable run for TAS conditions
* NBMB (glitched any%/low%) realtime - due to it's unique tricks and the lowest completion time and item collection. Because of the NBMB conditons, this doesn't interfere with the true any% and the true low% (14%) runs though
* RBO/Suitless realtime - due to being the most variative run form of all categories, and due to the extremely high difficulty, making it a very TAS suitable run form as well.
Ask anybody who knows SM and it's run forms well enough, they should confirm that overall.
Mmbossman:
That's why I said "against 90% of the judge guidelines". Your first 2 points fall under the small upper "Sum-up" part of them, which is the other ~10%.
As for point 3, you greatly exaggerate, and you know it. Please check this post for an as objective view as it can be about the 14% category and it's goals. They are not different than in a 100% run that also goes out of the "fastest way" to beat the game.
I apologize for stepping forward and unrejecting the SM submission.
It was not my point to signal that if people whine enough, they'll get their will through.
Nor was my intention to override any single judge's decision or step in their territory regards administrative projects they have at hand.
I unrejected SM because many people had asked it, and the fact stood that it had received more suggestions (not naming those people here) than any other submission. I considered it to be unavoidable.
I unrejected it, because I did not realize that this unrejecting was someone's project in particular ― I started it by bringing back Solomon's Key 2, and I thought I can also bring back SM within those same rights. Now that I read the opening post of this thread, I realize I did wrong.
For causing this mess, I think I'm the one who should fix it, too. I'll go ahead with it, now.
I love how absolutely contradictory these are. Super Metroid is one of those games that has quite a large viewer base, and I'm having some severe trouble seeing how other runs of it are honestly that bad (boo hoo, we have an extra entry in the bloated SNES movies page! forgive me while I go roll my eyes)
Then again, this is the same site that, iirc, rejected the CCC Mario 64 TAS because oh noes! its a real-time goal! and we cannot have any of that. That goes for the 16-star TAS, since, after all, having a middle-man movie between 0-star and 120-star (shows nothing of the game and shows everything]) is bad!
Yeah, this is a real concrete rule. Never been broken. Oh wait.
it must not interfere with the primary goal of fastest completion.
I remember back when it the idea of having movies that didn't rush though the game as their only goal was plausible.
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. Most games have only one movie, simply going as fast as possible with any means. A handful of games also have a movie which shows more of the game, such as no warps, or 100% items, or without a glitch that takes you straight to the end.
Because as we all know, having more movies is bad bad bad. I'll go work on another version of SMB3 that beats the game a few frames faster, since at least that will be published (and likely with a lot of fanfare because ooh important)
Accept it or don't, I don't care.
As much as I love all the Saturn hate, this is just one of those instances where I've gotta side with him (and nineko and the likes).
I'll be blunt. There's a reason that friends who link me to TASes never link to them here any more.
In case you haven't noticed, _someone_ unrejected the SM submission. Everyone please redirect this overdone conversation to that thread.
The funny thing is, the discussion in this specific thread were mostly civil.
Guys, stop. You're not thinking properly, you're just attacking yourselves. Do you know the only thing that will be hurt with all this drama? TASVideos. People will stop TASing to not bother with so many fights.
Calm down.
Remember in the start of this thread, I got all angry about this issue? I got better, I realized that's not the way of trying to change something.
[edited]
Saturn, calm down a little, please. It's pretty much clear that everyone here doesn't like the way you write, so please review your attitude. You're not a bad TASer, but not the best TASer ever.
My first language is not English, so please excuse myself if I write something wrong. I'll do my best do write as cleary as I can, so cope with me here =)
(ﾉಥ益ಥ）ﾉ
So you're telling everyone to calm down, and then you attack someone?
heh. sorry
It wasn't my intention of actually attack him, I was just trying to give him an advice. I'll change my words to sound less-offensive
there ya go
My first language is not English, so please excuse myself if I write something wrong. I'll do my best do write as cleary as I can, so cope with me here =)
(ﾉಥ益ಥ）ﾉ
Btw, personally I would like to see a fully optimized "mid-ground" Mario64 run (meaning eg. 16 stars collected). However, I think that to make this a rational category, there has to exist some limitation which forces a minimum of 16 stars to be collected.
In the case of Super Metroid there's a logical concrete limitation which can be applied in order for a "mid-ground" run to be performed: No save glitching. It's a simple, clear, concise, logical and unambiguous limitation which automatically causes the desired effect.
However, is there such a concrete limitation applicable to the Mario64 run which would force 16 stars to be collected? Unless I'm mistaken, a "no backwards long jumping allowed" would not achieve that goal because it's necessary for the 16-star completion (please correct me if I'm wrong). And if the BLJ is allowed, then there's no reason to not to do a 0-star run.
A "this run collects 16 random stars, just for the sake of it" is not a rational goal. It's completely arbitrary. Why 16? Why not 25 or 9? And which 16? Why those 16 and not some others?
Unless some generic limitation can be imposed which forces those certain 16 stars to be collected, I'm not sure any such category is possible for Mario64.
If I remember correctly, 15 stars are needed to trigger the rabbit which was used to get through the DDD door, and one star is collected in DDD to move the liquid wall and get access to the pit that leads you to Bowser. This, until it has been found that you can skip both of those tasks by BLJing through both the door and the liquid wall. However, and still, if I remember correctly, BLJs are needed to complete a 16 stars run too. The only difference between a 16 stars run and a 0 stars run is that there is one more BLJ.
Yeah, you need the BLJ to skip Bowser's endless stair before getting 70 stars.
Speaking of which, Kyman is (was?) working on a BLJ-less 70-star run, which seems to be what Warp was looking for. It'll be a lot longer than the 16-star run was, but it has that nice unambiguous "no BLJs" rule.
Pyrel - an open-source rewrite of the Angband roguelike game in Python.
Speaking of which, Kyman is (was?) working on a BLJ-less 70-star run, which seems to be what Warp was looking for. It'll be a lot longer than the 16-star run was, but it has that nice unambiguous "no BLJs" rule.
I'm not so absolutely sure 70 stars really is what "I was looking for". Ok, it may be somewhat shorter than the full 120-star run, but not that much. It's still pretty long. After a certain critical length it doesn't really matter that much if it takes a bit longer to perform the 100% run.
I would watch a 70-star run if it was published, of course. I'm just not sure it would be so different from the 100% run that it really deserves its own category...
(Disclaimer: In no way am I an expect in Mario64. I don't know how much different the 70-star run would be from the 100% run.)
(Disclaimer: In no way am I an expect in Mario64. I don't know how much different the 70-star run would be from the 100% run.)
As a no-Mario64 expert, I can see, at least, no or a few 100 coins stars. I believe this, alone, would make the game significant faster. Also, some red coins stars seems to take a long time to collect.
Maybe entire worlds could be skipped (like Dire Dire Docks).
My first language is not English, so please excuse myself if I write something wrong. I'll do my best do write as cleary as I can, so cope with me here =)
(ﾉಥ益ಥ）ﾉ
For one I don't think this is the best place to talk about Mario 64. However, I also think that some 100 coins stars should be included, in order to get two stars at the same time (just like the 8 red coins stars in the first two Bowser levels).
It is true that most of the really slow stars can be skipped; under identical conditions a 70-star run would be significantly more than twice as fast as a 120-star run. Of course, the 120-star run being worked on uses BLJs so they aren't directly comparable.
Pyrel - an open-source rewrite of the Angband roguelike game in Python.
