However, despite that I just said, I think there is still a chance for this movie. The fact is... We can't talk about loss in entertaining, if the movie wasn't entertaining in first place. Yes, because the existing publication is already in Vault, so it shouldn't really matter if a new movie is made with a game version that makes it even less entertaining. At this point we need to focus just on the technical merits of the two movies. And since the game version used for this submission resulted objectively harder to play, it should by logic be considered preferred over the easier to play version. On the other hand, I have to acknowledge that until now, version choice of any game was always made in order to pick the game that allowed to beat the game faster, doesn't matter how unfair the advantage looked. Some versions were picked because lagged less, some where picked because allowed more useful glitches... Historically, the slower version of a game was allowed only as an extra beside the faster one, and only if it resulted in more than 50% of gameplay differences. This may not look favorable for this submission, but we need to ask ourselves: why were the faster versions always preferred in the past? Was it for the sake of maximizing entertaining quality, or was it for the sake of maximizing technical quality? I think that in the end, the solution of this dispute just depends on answering this question. And if anyone doesn't agree that the core of the problem is in there, then I'd be curious to learn why.
No one can compete because it's strictly a TAS run due to the bizarre frame-perfect glitching and use of multiple directions here. Walkathons can be competed with by normal people. Doesn't matter if the TAS is faster---you can at least try to play against it, and it's a goal that real people can try and entertain.
If ROM hacks have to enter a fierce survival of the fittest to determine what can occupy the limited spaces of Moons when the hacks only faintly relate to each other in terms of entertainment space, I am very curious why entirely arbitrary goals like only pressing one of the buttons [x] amount of times is something that can be kept and maintained as a tier, especially when the goal has no possible speed focus. Routing can determine how quickly you can complete a walkathon, so there's still an element of speedrunning to those. This has none, speed is not a focus.
Per Oxford and Merriam-Webster, both sourced there, the words are indeed a bit different and minimal refers to something that is almost at the lowest point, but not quite.
minimum1 The least or smallest amount or quantity possible, attainable, or required. ‘keep costs to a minimum’
1.1 The lowest or smallest amount of a varying quantity (e.g. temperature) allowed, attained, or recorded. ‘clients with a minimum of £500,000 to invest’
Speed is an arbitrary goal if there's no end point. How fast you can run does not matter if it's not specifying for how long, or for what distance. Everyone can be Usain Bolt for one step but I don't think they'll be like him for a ten yard dash, or for an hour. Super Mario Bros. has a clear ending point: saving Princess Peach. If ACE could do this at the title screen, that would be the fastest method to do it, like in Mario 3. I wouldn't even compare this type of run to the submitted and likely to be canceled run of SMS California Games as that at least lists a defined goal that is easily understandable: you beat the default high score. That is the "endpoint". Going past it makes no sense per the game itself.
I want to compare this to your warpless walkathon run. What if you ended up having to press B in order to cross the gap in 4-3? That would immediately have put the entire run into a gray area.
And now you want to pass off a Jumpless run with "only" 60+ jumps? Trying to disguise it as minimum A presses is too much of a stretch for me.
Mario got tired of jumping, so he thought: how do I save the princess with the fewest jumps?
We ended up using only 62 A presses. It's also a completion with the fewest jumps.
A walkathon isn't very comparable, it's not an arbitrary goal, is something anyone can try and compete against (just don't press B), etc. This isn't.
That's not the "minimum B presses", it's literally none. This does press A though, and quite a lot. It is the definition of arbitrary.
The only thing that determines whether a hack is accepted (or similarly for non-hacks, what tier a movie should go into) is the judge's opinion. Nothing else. One could even argue that voting is completely useless.
If we're wanting to allow any score below the maximum to be considered for "fastest completion," then any score that the game considers good enough for progress should be allowed. This would require including games where complete failure in an event (via attempts resulting in only faults) would have to be allowed for "fastest completion" if the game allowed the player to continue beyond that point. The above mentioned Decathlon game would be in this category, it allows for complete failure of a score based event while still progressing to the end of the game. I wouldn't like the idea of accepting things that way.
it completes the single quantifiable objective set out by the game ("beat these high scores") in the fastest possible time.
It'd be nice if someone posted A counts for other SMB branches.
| Movie | Frame count | "A" count | Awesomeness ratio |
|---|---|---|---|
| "maximum coins" | 94370 | 2345 | 40.24307 |
| "all items" | 71438 | 1661 | 43.00903 |
| "warpless" | 67117 | 1372 | 48.91909 |
| "warpless, walkathon" | 91304 | 1503 | 60.74783 |
| "warps" | 17868 | 286 | 62.47552 |
| "-3 stage ending" | 9893 | 132 | 74.94697 |
| "minimum A presses" | 37525 | 62 | 605.24193 |