Submission Text Full Submission Page
This is an any% version of this Game.
It is actually an interesting version of Donkey Kong that I explain better in my 100% run.
It is important to note that the only difference between this game and the "original" NES Donkey kong is the 2nd level was added (making it 4 levels instead of 3). The other 3 levels are identical, and compared to the published movie this TAS is equally fast.
turska: Rejec Judging.
turska: Donkey Kong: Original Edition is official NES software originally released in 2010 included a 25th anniversary Wii bundle. The game is likely an official romhack and not a prototype from the 1980s (details here).
As it is enhanced re-release that adds new content that is emulated accurately, running this ROM in a NES emulator is a valid game choice for submission. Most VC re-releases only contain minor changes (if any) that are inconsequential for a TAS; the vast majority of them would have no notable differences from the original releases. In the case of N64, inaccurate emulation with Mupen is also a concern. Donkey Kong: Original Edition is highly exceptional in this, and accepting TASing the ROM on a NES emulator does not set a precedent for TASing Virtual Console games in general.
Content-wise, Donkey Kong: Original edition adds the second level from the arcade version and an animation of Donkey Kong climbing up the ladder while carrying Pauline - the original NES Donkey Kong lacks these. This TAS represents a superset of NES Donkey Kong's content - levels 1, 3, and 4 are identical and equally fast to their DK NES counterparts.
While we allow different ports of games even in the Vault (such as [2727] SNES Classic Kong Complete by Fortranm in 02:12.76), two ports of the same game on the same system that result in outright identical TASes push this rule, and I don't think having TASes of both NES Donkey Kong and Donkey Kong: Original Edition published makes sense.
As DKOE is a mostly superior port, this TAS could obsolete NES DK; it has the second level, includes the animation of Donkey Kong climbing, and represents a superset of a NES DK TAS.
On the other hand, DKOE is highly obscure and narrowly released compared to NES Donkey Kong, which is the most famous port of the game - DKOE was initially only available in promotional tie-ins for four years since its initial release in 2010 with a Wii bundle, until 2014 when it was released on 3DS Virtual Console in Europe (here). Its status as an official romhack likely made decades after the original NES port decreases its historical value compared to initial speculation of it being a lost prototype.
Considering these factors, I am rejecting this TAS and ruling that for an any% TAS of Donkey Kong, the initial NES Donkey Kong is the preferred game version. For an "all items" TAS, Donkey Kong: Original Edition is preferred and shows off the added second level. Between DK NES any% and DKOE "all items", both any% and "all items" TASes of every stage (except for an any% of DKOE stage 2 which is exclusive to this submission) are represented on the site without any redundant publications.

Show more

Hide
1 2 3
Posted: 3/11/2015 7:33 PM
Quote
AntyMew
It/Its
Encoder, Player (35)
Joined: 10/22/2014
Posts: 425
Scepheo wrote:
To anyone looking up the original NES version (so not this one) on the site, having this run obsolete it means they won't be able to find a current TAS of it. Which is, of course, not a situation we want.
I find it ironic that you're saying this when this one's name is Donkey Kong: Original Edition :U Regardless, I find it unlikely that a subtitle would make it any more difficult to find it
Just a Mew! 〜 It/She ΘΔ 〜 ███████
Posted: 3/11/2015 8:34 PM
Quote
Radiant
Player (26)
Joined: 8/29/2011
Posts: 1206
Location: Amsterdam
Since this is a different version of the same game, I feel this should obsolete the former run as this version is considered more interesting (because of the extra level). That doesn't make Phil the co-creator, though, for the same reason that Phil's current movie doesn't list Aglar or Hero Of The Day or Arc or Omnipotent as the co-creator (all those people made earlier runs of the same game, but that doesn't mean they helped Phil with his run).
Indie game developer
Posted: 3/12/2015 4:05 AM
Quote
Buddybenj
He/Him
Joined: 1/12/2013
Posts: 166
Location: USA
Mothrayas wrote:
The reason we're considering obsoletion is because this version's content completely overlaps the NES release's content. There is literally nothing that the NES run does that this run doesn't also do. The NES run is, therefore, technically redundant.
I don't think that just because a run contains everything another run contains means that it should obsolete it. For example, most 100% runs do everything an any% run does, but that doesn't mean that the 100% run should obsolete the any% run. Also, I don't believe that we should let a remake of the game obsolete the original.
Projects: Interested in TASing N64 Mario Golf. GBA Mario Tennis: Power Tour is on hold.
Posted: 3/12/2015 5:09 AM
Quote
Spikestuff
They/Them
Editor, Publisher, Expert player (2292)
Joined: 10/12/2011
Posts: 6337
Location: The land down under.
Flash TASer of 2022 PSX TASer of 2016
Radiant wrote:
That doesn't make Phil the co-creator.
Yea. But if you think about it, it's bit of a dog move doing this.
WebNations/Sabih wrote:
+fsvgm777 never censoring anything.
Disables Comments and Ratings for the YouTube account. Something better for yourself and also others.
Posted: 3/12/2015 5:47 AM
Quote
andypanther
Any
Former player
Joined: 6/30/2010
Posts: 1093
Location: Zurich, Switzerland
I don't know if the input is exactly the same, but I don't think it is. It's just a really optimized game, so adelikat got the same number of frames. I remember when he did the Cheetahmen II TAS where he glitched straight to level 5. If you went by frames, those two levels he did were exactly the same as in my "all levels" TAS, but I'm not a co-author there. And that was the right thing to do, I never complained about the decision. Adelikat used his own input, but was only able to tie the published TAS, just like with this new TAS here. But that situation was even more complicated, because the TAS essentially got reduced to only those two levels! And if you go back to the TAS I did, you will realize that I was also not able to improve those two levels compared to was0x obsoleted run. So technically, if you were to give someone co-authorship for the glitched Cheetahmen TAS, it would not be me, but was0x. The point here is: We should give co-authorship for input, not frame numbers.
Current project: Gex 3 any% Paused: Gex 64 any% There are no N64 emulators. Just SM64 emulators with hacky support for all the other games.
Posted: 3/12/2015 7:02 AM
Quote
Samsara
She/They
Senior Judge, Site Admin, Expert player (2121)
Joined: 11/13/2006
Posts: 2793
Location: Northern California
Homebrew TAS of 2023 Exotic platforms TAS of 2020 Sega TAS of 2016
Let's think about co-authorship credit this way: Which is the more morally "correct" choice to make? Give Credit: A lot of people are already calling for it. It's something that makes sense in terms of this movie and the published run given the incredibly similar content. The only person that might be "harmed" by this decision is adelikat himself, and as far as I can tell the only "harm" that would come from this is him not getting as many player points. Don't Give Credit: This is the more "logical" choice given that Phil's input doesn't actually appear in the movie, but in my opinion that just means we need to take a look at the rules for co-authorship and make some changes to them accordingly. This seems like a narcissistic choice if anything, as Phil's run wasn't surpassed in any way, shape or form aside from this run having an extra stage. Phil's strategies and optimizations were still used in this run. This choice essentially robs Phil of his record that wasn't even beaten and would likely make some people lose their respect for adelikat and/or whoever ultimately makes the decision for obsoletion. These are just my admittedly biased thoughts. Take them as you will, but I do agree that Phil should get credit if his movie is obsoleted. If anything, I think there isn't enough co-author credit on the site. I always appreciate runs like the new Final Fantasy glitched run that credit people for things other than providing actual controller input, even if that amount of "input" is minimal. There's something more... realistic about it, I suppose. None of my runs would have existed if it weren't for the work done by runners (both TASers and RTA) before me, and looking back I feel bad not crediting them for how much they contributed to my runs, even if it wasn't active contribution by the authors. Sure, maybe it's a bit overkill to credit EVERY idea ever given to you*, as the co-authorship lists would get ridiculously long, but I feel like ideas that make up the core of a run should have some credit attached to them. As for the matter of obsoletion itself... I can't say for sure whether I'm for or against it. There's too much weirdness surrounding the ROM and game in general that makes me think it's different enough for a different publication, but at the same time I feel it'd be redundant to have both runs published when this one does everything the published run does and more. *this mentality is the only thing keeping me from whining more about metal force
TASvideos Admin and acting Senior Judge 💙 | Cohost
warmCabin wrote:
You shouldn't need a degree in computer science to get into this hobby.
Posted: 3/12/2015 8:42 AM
Quote
turska
Experienced player (758)
Joined: 6/17/2008
Posts: 146
Computer TASer of 2012
Samsara, you make a good point about the rules of co-authorship: the only hard rules are that plagiarism and very low-effort improvements are not allowed. Here are the authorship rules - emphasis on the ones that apply to this submission:
Movie Rules wrote:
The movie must be properly attributed Do what is better for the audience, not yourself. Trying to get your name on the site at all costs will not make you popular. TASVideos aims to remain a polite community, so certain offenses are regulated by rules. Do not claim authorship for something you haven't made Taking another user's movie and submitting it under your name is strictly forbidden. Such offense is potential grounds for a ban. This doesn't apply to situations where a similar or identical solution is discovered and implemented independently. A modicum of effort is required Taking another user's movie and trimming or changing the last few frames is strongly discouraged if it doesn't make the movie reach the winning condition any sooner. Such movie will likely be rejected during the grace period on the similar grounds as above. If there is an oversight that requires an easy fix at the end of the published movie, it is much more preferable to notify its author first, and see if they want to implement it themself. If not, it would still be preferable to attribute the new movie as co-authored. See the next paragraph for elaboration. Crediting other users' contribution There are no exact rules that estimate the significance of each contribution, but it's generally accepted that if you simply copy large chunks of gameplay from an earlier movie as they are, that effectively makes a new submission coauthored. Authorship isn't enforced, but the audience might become unhappy if you don't give credit where it's due. If unsure, consult with a judge. This notion is relaxed in sub-second improvements (commonly referred to as "frame wars"), as copying large parts of gameplay from previous generations of such TAS becomes less and less avoidable with each subsequent generation.
Outside submissions that involve plagiarism, low-effort improvements, or other conflicts, judges generally don't enforce co-authorship one way or the other. Deciding what qualifies as co-authorship is left to the submitter; it can be strictly based on input and who worked on the movie, or include indirect contributions or past work on the game if the submitter finds it appropriate. For this submission, I don't think enforcing a particular view of co-authorship would properly address the larger issue of potentially obsoleting NES DK. Obsoleting NES DK while enforcing co-authorship for compensation seems wishy-washy and circumstantial; what if the existing NES Donkey Kong movie was made by adelikat, or Phil had made this movie? The authorship of a movie should not factor into the decision of which version of a game is preferred for TASing. If NES DK were obsoleted by DKOE, Phil would still maintain authorship over the NES Donkey Kong movie and retain the fastest tool-assisted record in that version. Another consideration is [2727] SNES Classic Kong Complete by Fortranm in 02:12.76, a homebrew SNES port of Donkey Kong. If DKOE and DK NES were both kept, we'd have three published ports of Donkey Kong, of which the two NES versions are very similar.
Posted: 3/12/2015 8:45 AM
Quote
Spikestuff
They/Them
Editor, Publisher, Expert player (2292)
Joined: 10/12/2011
Posts: 6337
Location: The land down under.
Flash TASer of 2022 PSX TASer of 2016
turska wrote:
Another consideration is [2727] SNES Classic Kong Complete by Fortranm in 02:12.76, a homebrew SNES port of Donkey Kong. If DKOE and DK NES were both kept, we'd have three published ports of Donkey Kong, of which the two NES versions are very similar.
Don't worry, there are many other versions of Donkey Kong yet to be done. Arcade, 2600, 7800, ColecoVision, Commodore 64, MSX, etc. etc.
WebNations/Sabih wrote:
+fsvgm777 never censoring anything.
Disables Comments and Ratings for the YouTube account. Something better for yourself and also others.
Posted: 3/12/2015 8:56 AM
Quote
jlun2
Skilled player (1706)
Joined: 9/17/2009
Posts: 4952
Location: ̶C̶a̶n̶a̶d̶a̶ "Kanatah"
GBA TASer of 2010
Spikestuff wrote:
turska wrote:
Another consideration is [2727] SNES Classic Kong Complete by Fortranm in 02:12.76, a homebrew SNES port of Donkey Kong. If DKOE and DK NES were both kept, we'd have three published ports of Donkey Kong, of which the two NES versions are very similar.
Don't worry, there are many other versions of Donkey Kong yet to be done. Arcade, 2600, 7800, ColecoVision, Commodore 64, MSX, etc. etc.
Well, for different platforms, it's not really an issue since it's allowed for vault rules. If it ends up something like this however... lol
LLCoolDave wrote:
This seems to be competing for the "Worst looking TAS of 2011" Award.
Posted: 3/16/2015 7:26 AM
Quote
Matriks404
Joined: 7/10/2013
Posts: 33
Location: Małopolskie, Poland
In my opinion it is indeed a NES ROM but it is not a legit NES game and it shouldn't obsolete existing TAS. This is Wii game and you should prove that the VC version syncs with NES/Emulator, or just TAS it on Wii VC.
Posted: 3/17/2015 10:29 PM
Quote
minglw
Joined: 4/3/2006
Posts: 269
Wow! Very entertaining and surprising! I didn't know that in the first level, you can climb down to get to the top. Yes vote.
Posted: 3/31/2015 8:43 PM
Quote
TASVideosGrue
They/Them
Joined: 10/1/2008
Posts: 2738
Location: The dark corners of the TASVideos server
om, nom, nom... *burp*!
1 2 3