Spikestuff baited himself and thought he did this run on Normal. It was on Hard.
The Stuff:
Bios: SCPH5500 (NTSC-J bios)
Hardest Difficulty
BizHawk 2.3.1
The lowest score value is chosen as well, dropping from 11 to 6. The lowest point value is 4, so getting to a value that's quicker was a higher priority.
This version of the game features ball switch on score, so stealing the ball back is important.
Unfortunately using the shorter characters for their speed such as Furin are much worse when they face a taller opponent making the quick shots near impossible.
If there was such thing as consistent charging I'd take it.
[14:15] <feos> WinDOES what DOSn't
12:33:44 PM <Mothrayas> "I got an oof with my game!"
Mothrayas Today at 12:22: <Colin> thank you for supporting noble causes such as my feet
MemoryTAS Today at 11:55 AM: you wouldn't know beauty if it slapped you in the face with a giant fish
[Today at 4:51 PM] Mothrayas: although if you like your own tweets that's the online equivalent of sniffing your own farts and probably tells a lot about you as a person
MemoryTAS Today at 7:01 PM: But I exert big staff energy honestly lol
Samsara Today at 1:20 PM: wouldn't ACE in a real life TAS just stand for Actually Cease Existing
this is the actual original story ratatouille is based on... exept the part where you bash the kid out so hard he cry, never play bascket balls ever again and become a actual hokey player...
also king... what a smug face
Sports games in the Vault are restricted to one game per series per platform, unless game-play is significantly different. For example, PGA Tour Golf III on the Sega Genesis may obsolete PGA Tour Golf II on the Sega Genesis. Which game obsoletes which is decided by which game makes a more technically impressive run, as decided by a judge.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Sports games in the Vault are restricted to one game per series per platform, unless game-play is significantly different. For example, PGA Tour Golf III on the Sega Genesis may obsolete PGA Tour Golf II on the Sega Genesis. Which game obsoletes which is decided by which game makes a more technically impressive run, as decided by a judge.
There is an important clause in the section you just quoted.
"unless game-play is significantly different".
From my understanding the intent of the rule was to prevent having multiple movies of games where the only differences are roster and graphics.
Watching this very briefly, I noticed a couple differences from the ability to set the minimum score lower and how the ball gets handed off. In this one, one of the players just has it whereas in the other they have to do a jump grab thing for the ball. These to me read as significant differences.
EDIT: these games might have issues with the triviality section though:
If a run consists of doing a trivial strategy, made only nontrivial by having to do it over the course of several rounds, it will still be judged as trivial. For example, bowling games where the player gets a strike with ten pins every time.
[16:36:31] <Mothrayas> I have to say this argument about robot drug usage is a lot more fun than whatever else we have been doing in the past two+ hours
[16:08:10] <BenLubar> a TAS is just the limit of a segmented speedrun as the segment length approaches zero
There is an important clause in the section you just quoted.
"unless game-play is significantly different".
From my understanding the intent of the rule was to prevent having multiple movies of games where the only differences are roster and graphics.
Watching this very briefly, I noticed a couple differences from the ability to set the minimum score lower and how the ball gets handed off. In this one, one of the players just has it whereas in the other they have to do a jump grab thing for the ball. These to me read as significant differences.
I can't agree with your interpretation of "significant differences". Take this rule as an example:
Use the correct version wrote:
If there are significant in-game differences between different versions of a game, movies which take advantage of such differences can be published side by side. This can include things like different weapons or routes available to the player, different levels being present, or different bosses fought. If a particular version introduces a mechanic which can alter how the game is played, such as where players re-spawn when they die, and this mechanic can significantly alter how the game is played, movies which utilize these changes can be published side by side.
The way this is worded, significant differences in gameplay are what makes the 2 movies look like 2 different branches. It is exactly why we published [4059] GC NFL Street "NFL Challenge" by Lobsterzelda in 1:14:20.35 and [4127] GC NFL Street 2 "NFL Challenge" by Lobsterzelda in 25:52.90 side-by-side. This thread highlights how different those 2 games are.
Do the 2 One on One movies look like 2 different branches? To me, they don't. The games rules have slight difference, but the main strategy is identical: you remain on the same spot and just immediately throw the ball. In one of the games you have to also jump. In neither movie you have to prefer some other strategy in at least half the levels. Having to do the same twice doesn't change the main strat. Having to catch the ball doesn't change the main strat. In one game, one character makes you throw the ball while falling down. In another, one character makes you take the ball away from him. In neither you have to move anywhere.
If we take into account the main aspect we're supposed to compare the 2 runs by, I don't see essential difference in TAS technicality showcased in those 2 runs.
I'll ponder the triviality aspect separately.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
How does shooting work? Is it the same between games?
[16:36:31] <Mothrayas> I have to say this argument about robot drug usage is a lot more fun than whatever else we have been doing in the past two+ hours
[16:08:10] <BenLubar> a TAS is just the limit of a segmented speedrun as the segment length approaches zero
Joined: 10/12/2011
Posts: 6336
Location: The land down under.
Memory wrote:
Is it the same between games?
They're similar, but not the same.
Original: Requires you to hold Circle for Power.
Once releasing you have to press Circle again for Control/Accuracy.
Simple Series: Requires you to hold Circle for Power.
However, once releasing you better hope you aligned your Control/Accuracy gauge to the center otherwise your ball is gonna miss that hoop.
WebNations/Sabih wrote:
+fsvgm777 never censoring anything.
Disables Comments and Ratings for the YouTube account.Something better for yourself and also others.
And how do you align for control/accuracy in simple series?
[16:36:31] <Mothrayas> I have to say this argument about robot drug usage is a lot more fun than whatever else we have been doing in the past two+ hours
[16:08:10] <BenLubar> a TAS is just the limit of a segmented speedrun as the segment length approaches zero
Joined: 10/12/2011
Posts: 6336
Location: The land down under.
For real time it's hold until you can get it closer to center then release and hope you don't have too much power on it or miss the ring.
(Also learning the game in can help so you know when to actually shoot from 3)
Timing when you begin your shooting phase (for a TAS world) you can have extra power behind it. As long as it goes in.
WebNations/Sabih wrote:
+fsvgm777 never censoring anything.
Disables Comments and Ratings for the YouTube account.Something better for yourself and also others.
Weird strat in first level.
https://i.imgur.com/k2oP0M1.png
This game is somewhat simplistic in a TAS, but definitely not trivial. Throwing farther takes time, horizontal aiming takes time, enemies are random, and after one has been improved, the next one may refuse to co-operate. You can manipulate them by delaying your action, so that also takes time. I won 57 frames after shota and then was only 37 (iirc) frames ahead after monkey.
http://tasvideos.org/userfiles/info/63188588720498157
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Having tried test-tasing both games, I don't think either is trivial, and both require the same approach: keep adjusting simple actions in time in order to align them for perfect overall manipulation, while randomness is constantly fighting back, swallowing your improvements. The number of available actions is low, but here it's higher per level than in the other version, so it's just A LOT of simple adjustments. Very dumb and tedious, but there is some TAS challenge to it.
Due to more variety, both visible and internal, I still prefer this version.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
To me those are the sort of differences that are significant enough to consider them different games but I think we might agree to disagree on this point.
EDIT: My view is partially derived from a distaste of certain biases in regards to sports games, some of them codified into the rules. They are treated as same-y simply due to sharing the same basic rules as the sports they are derived from. From a technical perspective they can be quite different from each other. It seems weird to me to apply this standard to sports games and not other similar games. In a way, isn't the goal of many platformers to head right? What about Tetris variants? It's just odd to me to single out sports games.
[16:36:31] <Mothrayas> I have to say this argument about robot drug usage is a lot more fun than whatever else we have been doing in the past two+ hours
[16:08:10] <BenLubar> a TAS is just the limit of a segmented speedrun as the segment length approaches zero
My view is partially derived from a distaste of certain biases in regards to sports games, some of them codified into the rules. They are treated as same-y simply due to sharing the same basic rules as the sports they are derived from. From a technical perspective they can be quite different from each other. It seems weird to me to apply this standard to sports games and not other similar games. In a way, isn't the goal of many platformers to head right? What about Tetris variants? It's just odd to me to single out sports games.
I don't think it's random bias, but rather a concern that similar sports games provide similar TAS technicality and similar viewer experience, much like versions of the same game that are too similar to have as branches.
I've read the discussion that led to this rule, and it doesn't look like there can be an easy borderline that everyone could fully agree on, or a clear comprehensible solution that everyone would love. Games vary in how different they can be, for a human and for a TAS, so we just need to understand the spirit of the rule, and it'd be easier to apply.
Mothrayas wrote:
Which game obsoletes which is decided by which game makes a more technically impressive run. - This is certainly arguable, I suppose. I wrote it like this to make it still sound in line with the Vault mentality (tech over entertainment, trying to be reasonably objective), as "whichever game is better" is a very subjective as well as vague question.
I think technicality can be compared by whether or not the same TAS techniques are required for both games, or one allows to showcase some unique aspects. From having tested both 1-on-1's, technicality looks very similar.
Again, it's obvious here that the rules of those games aren't identical, but I still feel there's way too much similarity between them, as explained. Lumping them together may not feel perfect, but if we need to find a clear cut, it's in how this rule's intention compares to intentions of similar rules.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
To me it's incongruent with previous judgments that have been made.
For example, the version of Samurai Shodown II in [3739] Arcade Samurai Shodown II by NhatNM in 11:36.43 is near identical to the version in [2709] PSX Samurai Shodown II by NhatNM in 17:10.02. When I discussed it with you, you suggested that the fact that they were different platforms was enough to not warrant obsoletion.
Meanwhile here we have two games with differing rules, and yet we must only pick one or the other. These two games are far more different from each other than that previous example. This is why I feel there is a bias present. It makes little sense to me otherwise.
[16:36:31] <Mothrayas> I have to say this argument about robot drug usage is a lot more fun than whatever else we have been doing in the past two+ hours
[16:08:10] <BenLubar> a TAS is just the limit of a segmented speedrun as the segment length approaches zero
Personally I see these as two different versions, the player pretty clearly has to do some different things in order to win optimally.
Seems like there is a lot of room for differences of opinion here. Why not have feos judge one and Memory judge the other one?
Seems like there is a lot of room for differences of opinion here. Why not have feos judge one and Memory judge the other one?
Given that we are debating how tied the submissions are to each other, I think there is no real benefit to splitting judgment between us.
[16:36:31] <Mothrayas> I have to say this argument about robot drug usage is a lot more fun than whatever else we have been doing in the past two+ hours
[16:08:10] <BenLubar> a TAS is just the limit of a segmented speedrun as the segment length approaches zero
Joined: 10/12/2011
Posts: 6336
Location: The land down under.
Alyosha wrote:
Why not have feos judge one and Memory judge the other one?
Well one's getting outright rejected for suboptimal input (this one) and is just here for this to be solved and figure out if the games can go alongside each other or not.
WebNations/Sabih wrote:
+fsvgm777 never censoring anything.
Disables Comments and Ratings for the YouTube account.Something better for yourself and also others.
To me it's incongruent with previous judgments that have been made.
For example, the version of Samurai Shodown II in [3739] Arcade Samurai Shodown II by NhatNM in 11:36.43 is near identical to the version in [2709] PSX Samurai Shodown II by NhatNM in 17:10.02. When I discussed it with you, you suggested that the fact that they were different platforms was enough to not warrant obsoletion.
Meanwhile here we have two games with differing rules, and yet we must only pick one or the other. These two games are far more different from each other than that previous example. This is why I feel there is a bias present. It makes little sense to me otherwise.
I can review those 2 movies closely, comparing every round by speed. The only difference the author mentioned explicitly was lag, and both are in Vault, so we'll see if there's actually any difference in gameplay.
Meanwhile I can reject this run for sub-optimality and set the other one to Delayed until the comparison is done.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
I can review those 2 movies closely, comparing every round by speed. The only difference the author mentioned explicitly was lag, and both are in Vault, so we'll see if there's actually any difference in gameplay.
Meanwhile I can reject this run for sub-optimality and set the other one to Delayed until the comparison is done.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
That was just an example of a decision that I felt was incongruent with how the rule is attempting to be enforced. Ultimately, I feel that the rule and the spirit of the rule are being applied too strictly. To me a change in the fundamental mechanics of shooting, a critical function performed throughout the TASes, identifies it as an entirely separate game. Sure it might LOOK similar as an end result, but the same concept also applies to sequels and the like. If one takes this to its extreme, one could consider Super Mario Bros. the Lost Levels another version of Super Mario Bros. with different levels and some new mechanics. Obviously this is ridiculous to propose, but it's essentially what we're proposing here. I know that different levels are directly considered valid unique content by the rules and this game has various opponents with different stats and obviously they can't all count as unique levels. However, not all games can really fit into that sort of structure. I don't see how a fundamental difference in mechanics doesn't count as a significant difference. I don't see what we gain by limiting it to one or the other.
EDIT: In a private conversation, somebody brought up Pokemon games and how we handle them and I would like to express my thoughts on them.
Pokemon games quite literally have "Version" in the title. It's even on the boxart.
For Fastest Completion, the strategies for Red/Blue and Yellow are the same. You use save corruption to be able to manipulate memory to trigger the end of the game from the first room. I do not know if this is possible in Japanese Red/Green but it is assumed to be, therefore the Green publication was obsoleted by the save glitch run as it did not have good enough ratings for moons. If the save glitch does not work on that version, we might want to consider revisiting. Otherwise, there is no point in having different runs of this branch for each version.
For glitchless Pokemon, we accepted both Blue and Yellow, as the significant differences between versions of Pokemon were on full display.
In the case of Yellow game end glitch and Blue warp glitch. Some differences were on display, but I felt it wasn't enough for a Moons only branch as not only is entertainment important, but unique entertainment also important. I fully admit that this was a borderline case. If the save glitch branch didn't exist and these runs were able to be considered fastest completion, I might have made a different decision as the runs would take on a new significance.
With gen I pokemon, there weren't really significant enough differences between mechanics in the branches that were able to obsolete cross version as opposed to the ones where we have multiple versions.
With the 1 on 1 games there are multiple differences to fundamental mechanics of the game. How you obtain the ball to begin with. How you shoot. I personally interpret these as significant.
Obviously if you just describe these movies vaguely, you just shoot at the basket as quick as possible. But in the same vein you can describe most platformers as just "heading right as quick as possible". So I don't think such an analysis really holds up.
EDIT 2: this post in particular I find to be far too vague:
feos wrote:
Having tried test-tasing both games, I don't think either is trivial, and both require the same approach: keep adjusting simple actions in time in order to align them for perfect overall manipulation, while randomness is constantly fighting back, swallowing your improvements. The number of available actions is low, but here it's higher per level than in the other version, so it's just A LOT of simple adjustments. Very dumb and tedious, but there is some TAS challenge to it.
Like "keep adjusting simple actions in time in order to align them for perfect overall manipulation" could just as easily be describing an RPG let alone these two specific sports games. The "What is being manipulated" and the "how you can manipulate them" are key to this whole thing.
EDIT 3: So I asked for further details about the shooting mechanics.
So here is a a sample set of shooting inputs in 1 on 1 provided to me by feos:
Basically in order to shoot, first you hold the button and then release in time with the gauge to determine your power. Then you simply press the button a second time in regards to a second gauge for Ctrl/Accuracy.
Now for a sample set of inputs for 1 on 1 Plus:
You only need to hold and release the button once but the timing is in regards to both gauges moving simultaneously.
This to me is significantly different gameplay mechanics. Timing two meters separately versus timing two at the same time strikes me as EXTREMELY different.
[16:36:31] <Mothrayas> I have to say this argument about robot drug usage is a lot more fun than whatever else we have been doing in the past two+ hours
[16:08:10] <BenLubar> a TAS is just the limit of a segmented speedrun as the segment length approaches zero
If there are significant in-game differences between different versions of a game, movies which take advantage of such differences can be published side by side. This can include things like different weapons or routes available to the player, different levels being present, or different bosses fought. If a particular version introduces a mechanic which can alter how the game is played, such as where players re-spawn when they die, and this mechanic can significantly alter how the game is played, movies which utilize these changes can be published side by side.
Before anything else, I want to make an observation about the spirit of the rule itself. It's clear that this has been designed in order to avoid redundancy, but I want to note that it's not the same reasoning behind the containment of amount of different branches for a game. Here, we have a rule that regulates games for their own TASing merits, rather than for apparent similarity of gameplay. So I think that two games can be published side by side if they feature differences such that result in different play strategies in order to beat the game optimally. This of course excludes cases where one of the two is an updated of the other one, effectlively reproposing all the features of one game, but with the addition of new gameplay aspects.
From what I could see so far, the two 1 on 1 versions of seem to be enough different for being considered as two intrinsically different games. Let's have a quick, non-exhaustive list:
Half Court
Shooting mechanics
Jump on ball
Different score limit
Different characters
Different final boss
Game settings
Beside these, I also want to add a side note. The later 1 on 1 version is not just a game revision or a bugfix, but a remake. It's clear that most of the game code was remade from scratch, even though most of the game spirit and design is reproposed. The point is that for this comparison we care only about the former, and not the latter. Also, we already allowed some minor game revision to be published side by side, just because specific gameplay changes resulted in different TASing gameplay, so I don't see why we shouldn't allow both versions of 1 on 1, given the overall differences.
Now, there is still another issue. Beside what just said above, there is another rule that limits different game versions:
Movie Rules wrote:
Sports games in the Vault are restricted to one game per series per platform, unless game-play is significantly different. For example, PGA Tour Golf III on the Sega Genesis may obsolete PGA Tour Golf II on the Sega Genesis. Which game obsoletes which is decided by which game makes a more technically impressive run, as decided by a judge.
For games with different characters/groups/countries with different statistics, only the fastest run is accepted. Runs using suboptimal characters are not accepted.
For this rule it's even more clear that it's trying to limit redundant gameplay, as it's specifically provided that the preferred game is the one deemed more technically impressive. This rule was implemented because sometimes sports games may feature particularly similar gameplay between different titles of the same series, with only differences in minor aspects like different soccer teams or different golf maps. However, that's a different matter of 1 on 1, because in this case it's the other way around: the environment and the playable characters are apparently similar, while the gameplay differences are very specific and technical.
But most importantly... Should this rule be applied for 1 on 1 at all? Because I see that we apply the game genre tags by going with our own policy, instead than looking for external sources, regardless of how much official they may be. And for this games, this looks to me much more like a fighting game, rather than a sports game. First of all, if this was really a sports game, which sport is featuring? Is basket even supposed to be done 1 on 1? Are there any globally acknowledged rules in the real world for this kind of competitions? I can permit that this could be considered as a fantasy sports game, like many other games do. But in that case, what is it that really makes it a sport game? It looks like a fighting environment to me, in all aspects. The focus of the contention is not mainly the ball, but the opponent instead. The two contenders face the other with a confrontational approach. They compete in rounds, rather than with a fixed timer. Yeah, they have to meet a score in order to win, but isn't that also in professional Karate competitions? Would MTPO be limited too, if it featured sequels for the same console? What about Tekken 1, 2, 3?
In my opinion 1 on 1 isn't your standard sports game, so it doesn't fall under this rule.
Edit: ok, I guess that 1 on 1 basket is an actual form of competition that exists in real life, yet it's not regulated by official associations and it follows a varying ruleset. And even if we decide to consider it objectively as a sport, it doesn't change my point about the fact that the rule is actually regulating games that propose variations that don't strictly involve gameplay mechanics. Maybe we could even suggest a better wording for the written rule itself, and I'd like anyone to share their opinion, if there are.
...it doesn't change my point about the fact that the rule is actually regulating games that propose variations that don't strictly involve gameplay mechanics. Maybe we could even suggest a better wording for the written rule itself, and I'd like anyone to share their opinion, if there are.
Regarding the current rule:
As I understand it, the spirit of the rule is to prevent publishing of multiple games that are little more than re-skins of one another; games where (as already mentioned) a team name or player image is different, but the game is otherwise played exactly (or almost exactly) the same way. This would be the case for many serialized sports games (examples: the Madden football series, NBA 2k series, MLB 2k series, Tiger Woods Golf, etc).
In these games, rosters change from year to year; but most of the game-play, modes, and mehcanics are similar (if not identical). For these type of games, this is a good rule.
Occasionally a particular year's release will have a new mode or a significant change in game-play/mechanics that warrants considering it different enough to be a 'different' game from a publication standpoint.
As an example, when considered side by side, John Madden Football released for the SNES in 1990 is a drastically different game than Madden NFL '21 released in 2020 for the Xbox One; yet they are technically part of of the same series published by EA Sports. These two iterations of the same series are comparably different and would be considered different enough to warrant two publications (assuming they were both TASable and all other rules were followed). These kind of differences are covered by the current rule. More thoughts regarding the current rule:
As written, the rule says that two games in the same series require significantly different game-play.
The distinction we need to decide is, what qualifies as significantly different game-play. Are we more concerned about the appearance of different game-play or are we more concerned about actually different game-play?
These two 1-on-1 may not appear to have very different game-play to a viewer; but the actual mechanics of game-play are different. Thus the challenge of TASing each requires a different approach between the two runs; not simply doing the same thing for a new set of skins.
If this submission had simply been a different skin, then it wouldn't be acceptable alongside the other version...however, it's not a re-skin, the primary mechanics of play are new. In my opinion, as the mechanics are significantly different, both should be acceptable publications regardless of a similar viewer experience.
The primary game-play portions of NFL 2k1 and Madden NFL 2001 look strikingly similar in game-play, but both would be acceptable (assuming all other rules could be followed for vault publication) because they are from different series. The mechanics of the primary play are also likely quite similar.
TL:DR
Arguing that two games from the same series (when they have different primary mechanics) can't both be accepted simply because they are from the same series, makes about as much sense to me as arguing that two games from completely different series/publishers can't both be accepted because they have nearly identical mechanics/game-play.
Rule Re-Wording Idea: (added italicized portion)
Sports games in the Vault are restricted to one game per series per platform, unless game-play is significantly different. This is to prevent multiple games that are little more than re-skins with the same game-play mechanics from being published along side one another.
For example, PGA Tour Golf III on the Sega Genesis may obsolete PGA Tour Golf II on the Sega Genesis. Which game obsoletes which is decided by which game makes a more technically impressive run, as decided by a judge.
*For games with different characters/groups/countries with different statistics, only the fastest run is accepted. Runs using suboptimal characters are not accepted.
Side Note: Grammatically speaking, the last sentence above is acceptable; but I'd consider rewording it to one of the following (simply because these all sound better to me while maintaining the same idea):
1) Runs using suboptimal characters will not be accepted.
2) Runs using suboptimal characters are not acceptable.
3) Runs using suboptimal characters will be rejected.
Side Note #2: I'm hoping someone actually has determined that PGA Tour II and PGA Tour III are little more than re-skins before using these two games as an example. Does the latter introduce anything new that would warrant consideration as a new mechanics/modes?
Simple Series: Requires you to hold Circle for Power.
However, once releasing you better hope you aligned your Control/Accuracy gauge to the center otherwise your ball is gonna miss that hoop.
Basically in order to shoot, first you hold the button and then release in time with the gauge to determine your power. Then you simply press the button a second time in regards to a second gauge for Ctrl/Accuracy.
Now for a sample set of inputs for 1 on 1 Plus:
You only need to hold and release the button once but the timing is in regards to both gauges moving simultaneously.
This to me is significantly different gameplay mechanics. Timing two meters separately versus timing two at the same time strikes me as EXTREMELY different.
