This is an improvement of 1444 frames or 24.07 seconds to Genisto's infamous "princess only" run of Super Mario Bros 2 (U)(PRG0). Thanks to all SMB2 TASers which includes but is not limited to: Sleepz/Genisto/DonamerDragon/Phil/Bisqwit/Diman, L-Spiro for his memory watcher, and adelikat and DeHackEd for their support. Uses FCEU 0.98.15
Goals
Abuses programming errors
Takes damage to save time
Uses a suboptimal character
Bisqwit: Replacing the movie file with one that has rerecord count as 0, in order to not cause artifacts at Movie Statistics, among possible other reasons.
adelikat: And accepting for publication as an improvement to the published movie.
NesVideoAgent: Hi! I am a robot. I took a few screenshots
of this movie and placed them here.
Oh! I also replaced the ROM name.
You indicated Super Mario Bros. 2 (U)(PRG0)[!].nes
I updated it to Super Mario Bros. 2 (U) (PRG0) [!].nes
why do you insist on padding your rerecord count to 100000? on the last submission it was vaguely believable (if not particularly plausible) that you used 100000 rerecords productively.
But considering the fact that for this version you had to redo less than half of the game, and you're already familiar with it, it's pretty transparent that, if you didn't hexedit the movie, you just spent a bunch of time at the end loading states needlessly.
I'll watch the submission tomorrow, but I felt the need to say something about this foolishness right now.
How fleeting are all human passions compared with the massive continuity of ducks.
Well, essentially why to not leave this as a wip since it doesnt seem as a "massive" improvement?
WIP = work in progress. This is no longer "in progress", because it's finished, isn't it?
Also, 24.07 seconds is quite in the right magnitude for an improvement on this particular movie.
why do you insist on padding your rerecord count to 100000?
Rerecords are easily forged and provide no useful data aside from a statistic. As fond as I am of statistics, a movie should be judged on the quality of it, and not some arbitrary, easily-edited digit.
After all, 5000+ rerecords could easily have been wasted on a route that didn't work at all, yet it would still reflect even though said rerecords had no impact on the final run. But this is just one example out of many.
why do you insist on padding your rerecord count to 100000?
[reply pending]
I completely concur... wasn't even plausible the first time.
Watch how the real count was only like a few thousand and he felt it wasn't big enough, so he inflated it to make it look like he's a god... [or a fraud more aptly]
Mr. Kelly R. Flewin
Mr. Kelly R. Flewin
Just another random gamer
----
<OmnipotentEntity> How do you people get bored in the span of 10 seconds? Worst ADD ever.
why do you insist on padding your rerecord count to 100000?
[reply pending]
I completely concur... wasn't even plausible the first time.
Watch how the real count was only like a few thousand and he felt it wasn't big enough, so he inflated it to make it look like he's a god... [or a fraud more aptly]
Mr. Kelly R. Flewin
Aparrently someone missed the memo of how rerecord counts don't matter.
Le sigh.
After all, 5000+ rerecords could easily have been wasted on a route that didn't work at all, yet it would still reflect even though said rerecords had no impact on the final run. But this is just one example out of many.
Still, at least those rerecords were spent proving that the route didn't work. What bothers me is when rerecords get lost because of a route split. See, when I get to a major split like that, I'll record going through one way and make a copy of the movie file. Then I'll go back and rerecord from the route split point on one of the copies. If the second route turns out to be slower, then I can just throw that version away and go back to the other copy. (That's the whole purpose of the copy.) But the rerecords spent testing that second route also got thrown away! It's as if I didn't do any of that work to reach my conclusion at all!
And there are other ways to throw the count way off, like if you like to load a savestate a couple extra times out of nervousness, or if you like to do testing outside of the main movie. That's why I try not to think about it too much. But you can tell from these big paragraphs that I have.
put yourself in my rocketpack if that poochie is one outrageous dude
"Hey, we're a site that makes emulator assisted movies and tries to improve them to the point they can't be anymore!"
"Hey, I just smashed the tar out of this game's old record! But I padded the rerecord count because everyone here is an elitist douchebag who automatically rejects any TAS where the rerecord count appears too low! I knew no one would watch if they saw THAT so I beefed it up out of paranoia!"
"KILL HIM AND THROW THE SUBMISSION AWAY! NERD RAAAAAAAAGE!""
Yeah, there's a reason I don't come around more often.
You assholes bitch if a record's beaten by too FEW seconds (despite the site being about getting movies as perfect as possible - you should be happy with stuff like that, even if it's mostly your old route plus a few improvements), you bitch if the rerecord count is too low - and again, you don't fucking watch on principle most of the time. But bitching about someone padding a number that shouldn't make any god damned difference?
Wow.
Just wow.
You idiots have reached new depths of stupidity.
Voting yes for an obvious improvement. Don't judge the numbers, judge the movie. Otherwise? Shut the fuck up.
why do you insist on padding your rerecord count to 100000?
[reply pending]
I completely concur... wasn't even plausible the first time.
Watch how the real count was only like a few thousand and he felt it wasn't big enough, so he inflated it to make it look like he's a god... [or a fraud more aptly]
Mr. Kelly R. Flewin
Aparrently someone missed the memo of how rerecord counts don't matter.
Le sigh.
I know rerecord counts don't matter
but fraud still pisses me off.
KaitouKid wrote:
Voting yes for an obvious improvement. Don't judge the numbers, judge the movie. Otherwise? Shut the fuck up.
You'll notice that none of us have actually voted no, dumbass.
Edit: it looks like 1 person has voted no. It wasn't me. I actually suspect that whoever did so hasn't posted yet, considering how rare it is that someone posts in the thread, votes, and does NOT post what they voted. Especially compared to the frequency of someone voting without posting in the thread at all.
How fleeting are all human passions compared with the massive continuity of ducks.
Then why, praytell, did I see a big, noticeable '0% (1)' or whatever on the submissions list?
Omgz, a ghost must have voted!
Jackass.
Edit: Since you're apparently too stupid to even check the top of this very page, I've taken the liberty of showing you what the voting stands at as of now.
[URL=http://imageshack.us][/URL]
Hm. Well, there's my yes vote. And I guess the mystery phantom's no vote!
(Sorry for derailing the discussion away from the subject even further, but...) It's only fraud if you're led to believe it's true, that round number arouses suspicion immidiately; if the submitter would've wanted to fool you, he would've chosen a less round number.
(Sorry for derailing the discussion away from the subject even further, but...) It's only fraud if you're led to believe it's true, that round number arouses suspicion immidiately; if the submitter would've wanted to fool you, he would've chosen a less round number.
I do belief that writing "King Henry III" on the sender line of the return address of a piece of US mail could land you prison time for "mail fraud" even though you were obviously not trying to convince anyone that you are actually King Henry III.
How fleeting are all human passions compared with the massive continuity of ducks.
I have now watched this movie. It's definitely better than the famtasia version, and even noticably faster than the cancelled one from two days ago, so I'm voting yes.
But, for the record, I am still in favor of some precedent being set that it is not okay to lie or fudge data in your submission, no matter how unimportant the fudged statistic.
also
KaitouKid wrote:
Edit: Since you're apparently too stupid to even check the top of this very page, I've taken the liberty of showing you what the voting stands at as of now.
The results display only appears after you've voted, and I hadn't voted yet, you douche.
How fleeting are all human passions compared with the massive continuity of ducks.
Joined: 6/11/2006
Posts: 818
Location: Arboga, Sweden
Setting the re-record count to 100000 is pretty silly yes.
Something I do NOT find stupid is the run.
I vote yes for several reasons.
Mostly because I like the run.
Warp wrote:
omg lol this is so fake!!!1 the nes cant produce music like this!
But, for the record, I am still in favor of some precedent being set that it is not okay to lie or fudge data in your submission, no matter how unimportant the fudged statistic.
IMHO faking the rerecord count is reprehensible if because of it the movie ends in the MovieStatistics page, especially if it wouldn't end there with the real value.
IMHO if the author obviously fakes the rerecord count, it should be set to 0 before publication (IIRC the MovieStatistics page ignores rerecord amounts of 0).
I vote yes for an obvious improvement, but agree with Warp that the rerecord count be set to 0 since it doesn't currently contain any information anyway.
BTW laughing_gas, just read the tutorial on hexediting. It's a very useful skill to have and would have given you the same (bad) result with hours less work. If you're going to cheat, at least cheat efficiently.
Joined: 11/14/2005
Posts: 1058
Location: United States
Voting yes. Great improvement to an old famtasia run.
Tampering with the rerecord count should be frowned upon. I think that type of information shows just how much testing an author did and how much work a future author may have to do if they ever wanted to improve the run. We already have two runs with incorrect rerecord counts, Metroid 2 100% and SMB, one of which is now falsely placed on the movie statistics page.
If you're going to cheat, at least cheat efficiently.
Don't cheat.
I didn't watched this version but did watched the cancelled run. I think he only fixes one thing or 2. So I guess I am not wrong to say that the movies are similar. Imo, by judging from the quality of the previous movie, I would say that rerecord count, and I'm generous, doesn't exceed 5000.
I was disappointed because you didn't do the intimidating act at the first Birdo battle. (I.e. standing uncomfortably close and following Birdo's movements exactly.)
Aside from that, this movie is good.
Voting yes. Great improvement to an old famtasia run.
Tampering with the rerecord count should be frowned upon. I think that type of information shows just how much testing an author did and how much work a future author may have to do if they ever wanted to improve the run. We already have two runs with incorrect rerecord counts, Metroid 2 100% and SMB, one of which is now falsely placed on the movie statistics page.
It should also be noted that the glitched LttP run is incorrect.
[/URL]
Hm. Well, there's my yes vote. And I guess the mystery phantom's no vote!
