This is an improvement of 1433 frames (23.88 seconds) over the previous submission.
Emulator used - SNES9x 1.43 v9
Aims for fastest time
Uses warps
Probably some other stuff
Improvements
Misty Isle 1 - Better running start.
Castle #1 - Optimized pipe entry and keep-flight door entry.
Crystal Star World - Glitch Yoshi wings for a big improvement. (Don't blink)
Sky Star World - Get faster-than-normal flying speed from the cloud.
Pipe Star World - Better tactics with keeping flight through pipes.
BackDoor Star World - Flying below the ground earlier after getting the key
General lag reduction by actions within the levels and a more optimized score route.
Let's Try Bonus Game
Pipe Star World - Yoshi can't normally enter these pipes, but the first two can be entered with Yoshi anyway. Other goofy things happen. If Yoshi could get to the key box, a similar shortcut to Crystal Star World could be used.
Bowser Star World - If Yoshi can make it through Pipe Star World, and with a shell in the reserve box, the raft here can be skipped from the beginning. Getting the reserve shell requires a major route change.
Backdoor Star World - Using the key to surf the lava underneath the spikes turned out to be a bit slower, but very cool looking.
Extra thanks go to DK64_MASTER, thegreginator, Cardboard, and ChanServ.
Bisqwit: Good looking movie, but it comes at least 32 frames short of
optimal time as pointed out by Chef Stef et al. Please resubmit when you have
fixed the needlessly long delay at 7:21. (I don't know how that is done, but
I suppose the resources for figuring that out that are out there.)
Reverting that action due to MAJOR PROTESTING.
I will step away from handling this submission unless someone decides to have it published. (I have already made an AVI.)
23 seconds of improvement and it's rejected for 32 frames? Bisqwit, you honestly thinks that keeping the old, less-optimized version as the current publication is best for the site?
This fix isn't a hex-edit job either. It's a 9 level redo, and I'm sure as hell not wasting my time with it.
<Swordless> Go hug a tree, you vegetarian (I bet you really are one)
This negative feedback, should it be interpreted so that we must not reject movies that fail to realize their potential?
What can I reject then? Always when a submission is rejected, there's a chance that the authors (and possibly audience) will become sulky about it.
It's exactly this why I'm not doing submission management that much anymore.
I fully acknowledge this made me feel a bit sulky Bisqwit but I also feel like my common sense isn't thrown out the window the second something doesn't go my way.
I've been discussing it some with adelikat who kinda agrees with you, so clearly you're not being that unreasonable. My opinion is it's just an absolutely abysmally horrible choice to choose the 23 seconds slower version instead, but according to adelikat it's consistent with the standard judging method.
23 seconds of improvement and it's rejected for 32 frames? Bisqwit, you honestly thinks that keeping the old, less-optimized version as the current publication is best for the site?
When EVER did I say "no, I like the old movie better"?!?
I called for a redo, to fix the mistake and resubmit.
It's not like if a movie is rejected, nobody can EVER submit an improvement or that nobody WILL ever submit an improvement.
JXQ wrote:
I'm sure as hell not wasting my time with it.
Then don't.
SMW (and SDW) are popular games here enough that there will likely be someone else who will be up to it.
Also, it is my understanding that these games are not absolutely horribly laborsome to work at. That's why I was willing to bet that there will be someone who wants to fix the mistake and submit.
But to put the question in a more general form: Am I right in understanding that you don't want us (judges) to ever reject movies that are slower than they could be when they're though faster than the published movie?
Or are you sucking a pea into your nose just because it's a submission in which you contributed?
With this sort of judging you should reject any movie submitted from now on that has even a single frame of visible improvement. It's not a good thing, even though it will lead to more optimized movies, it'll also lead to annoyed submitters and less movies submitted as a result. (and less published, which leads to less publicity etc etc.)
Voted yes, btw.
Joined: 11/11/2006
Posts: 1235
Location: United Kingdom
If submissions are rejected every time a small improvement that requires a complete redo is found, then theres going to be a lot of rejected runs. Its clearly closer to perfection than the run before it, so why reject it? Just because you KNOW its not perfect, doesn't mean it won't help the next person aim for perfection when attempting to obsolete it. I could try some sort of analogy involving machines and blueprints but I won't go there.
<adelikat> I am annoyed at my irc statements ending up in forums & sigs
I think it's a matter of common sense Bisqwit. Sometimes it's warranted, sometimes not.
You're dead wrong about how difficult SMW is to work on, I have an entire army of people who have TASed plenty more games than I have to back me up on that. Here is a sick improvement over an already very good run, and we have missed one trick. I understand what you're saying about your rejection meaning "go ahead and improve it again" rather than "I'm choosing the worse run", but in this case it's a lot closer to the second one, since your perception of the work required is pretty off here (it's not a hexedit job like JXQ said and TASing SMW sure is laborsome).
Edit: I might add that this means it's EXTREMELY unlikely we'll ever see a SMW/SDW run submitted again, SMW11 excluded. I feel pretty confident I'll be able to find at least 1 frame of known, confirmed improvement in anything else.
But to put the question in a more general form: Am I right in understanding that you don't want us (judges) to ever reject movies that are slower than they could be when they're though faster than the published movie?
I want you to be consistent. SMB2(U) was just published with like 10 seconds of improvement possible. This is rejected for 32 frames. I think it's inconsistent. I think the morale of not just this group, but all players will take a dive if you start nitpicking this closely - something the JudgeGuidelines page says not to do.
<Swordless> Go hug a tree, you vegetarian (I bet you really are one)
32 frames is practically unnoticeable, especially if it's due to an oversight and not poor tasing. My SMB2 tas could be ~41 frames faster depending on how the frame rule works, due to an oversight, but it was still published. Now if it was on the order of, say, minutes lost because of oversight(s), then yes a rejection would be warranted (case in point: the turok submission), but I think this movie should be published.
Borg Collective wrote:
Negotiation is irrelevant. Self-determination is irrelevant. You will be assimilated.
I want you to be consistent. SMB2(U) was just published with like 10 seconds of improvement possible.
Assuming you're talking about the Princess version (since that's the only one that was "just published"), I wasn't aware of those possible improvements in SMB2 (and still am not).
laughing_gas wrote:
32 frames is practically unnoticeable, especially if it's due to an oversight and not poor tasing. My SMB2 tas could be ~41 frames faster depending on how the frame rule works, due to an oversight, but it was still published.
It depends how the difference in frames happens.
I don't care about numbers, but the audiovisual performance. The difference which Chef Stef pointed out is quite obvious when you look at it.
When the difference is only seen in numbers, I couldn't care less; that would be the nitpicking JXQ mentions.
I recognize Fabian's point, that I may have underestimated the magnitude of work put into making a TAS of SMW or SDW.
Joined: 3/17/2007
Posts: 97
Location: Berkeley, CA
I'd hate to be the grue locked in a cage with this run. I found it very impressive, and I think the game's edit-unfriendliness (especially in terms of preserving lag management) has been underestimated.
Yes vote.
I want you to be consistent. SMB2(U) was just published with like 10 seconds of improvement possible. This is rejected for 32 frames. I think it's inconsistent.
Ding ding ding. I noticed that too and even I, who is not a frame Nazi, was considering to vote for rejection on such big errors.
This is really ridiculous. The frame gestapo has struck again. I highly urge you to rethink your decision. Not only is this completely ridiculous (32 frames is barely a single second), and if they're unlikely to want to make such an improvement and spend all that time and effort for 32 frames, then we're going to have an obsolete run on the site the site for a really, really long time.
I'm starting to get really sick of the absolute perfectionism that this site requires (only sometimes!) and I really think the policy needs to be rethinked. Videos should only be rejected when there's clear visible errors (a very minor logistical error is clearly not this) or an egregious amount of very minor logistical errors which leads up to a large loss of time.
Just remember that you're telling these four guys that their long work and their excellent video is below publication quality because of a loss of 32 frames. 32 FRAMES.
"Ah, I pondered that same thing, but I didn't bother testing it out.
This may be significant, but is it? There's the frame rule isn't there?"
It sure does seem you were aware of the smb2u thing Bisqwit. Later on in that thread it was confirmed. Not sure what you're saying here exactly.
Joined: 8/15/2005
Posts: 1934
Location: Mullsjö, Sweden
You were, more or less, aware of that it was faster to make an !Yoshi appear, as seen in Jimsfriend's movie.
It's like doing a TAS then you skip doing a trick that saved ½ second only because you couldn't be arsed to do it.
Oh well.
You were, more or less, aware of that it was faster to make an !Yoshi appear, as seen in Jimsfriend's movie.
It's like doing a TAS then you skip doing a trick that saved ½ second only because you couldn't be arsed to do it.
Oh well.
EDIT: Looks like they weren't fully aware of it but HEY my point here still stands.
If they were fully aware of something like that then it's a mistake, yeah, but there's no way in hell that it's visible to the average viewer and whether you realize it or not, there's a LOT of people on this site who do not actively participate in the forums and discussion and who do not look at TAS' so heavily under the microscope as we do, who will not see a tiny, pretty much unnoticable error as being so horribly dreadful that it warrants keeping an old version up.
You were, more or less, aware of that it was faster to make an !Yoshi appear, as seen in Jimsfriend's movie.
It's like doing a TAS then you skip doing a trick that saved ½ second only because you couldn't be arsed to do it.
Oh well.
No..? This isn't even close to what happened.
The fact that jimsfriend chose a faster option is a lucky coincidence. He didn't throw two shells into that ? box because it was 32 frames faster, he did it because it's cool to have an invisible Yoshi. At no point was this an intentional way of saving time, and when we did the 15 exit run, at no point did we intentionally skip a timesaver. Your tone kinda pisses me off here. "more or less" followed by "couldn't be arsed to do it", wtf.
Joined: 4/21/2004
Posts: 3517
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
I think this is the first time we see a submission made by 4 authors. Not only that, but its made by 4 Super Mario Bros Masters ^_^ Congratulations fellas on improving the current published run. *Strong yes vote*
Nitrogenesis wrote:
Guys I come from the DidyKnogRacist communite, and you are all wrong, tihs is the run of the mileniun and everyone who says otherwise dosnt know any bater! I found this run vary ease to masturbate too!!!! Don't fuck with me, I know this game so that mean I'm always right!StupedfackincommunityTASVideoz!!!!!!
Arc wrote:
I enjoyed this movie in which hands firmly gripping a shaft lead to balls deep in multiple holes.
natt wrote:
I don't want to get involved in this discussion, but as a point of fact C# is literally the first goddamn thing on that fucking page you linked did you even fucking read it
Cooljay wrote:
Mayor Haggar and Cody are such nice people for the community. Metro City's hospitals reached an all time new record of incoming patients due to their great efforts :P
Joined: 6/25/2006
Posts: 138
Location: Fort Collins, CO
In MSW I wanted to get the !yoshi because it looks cool but when I opened the box I noticed some lag frames, so I skipped it. If I knew that it would have been faster, I would have clearly done it, but I had no idea.
Now tell me is the movement that mario does in this movie not unlike MC Hammer's Hammer Slide?
Fastforward to 1:43 in this video.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=EMzoBkaFxh4
Joined: 5/23/2006
Posts: 361
Location: Washington, United States
Wow, I never thought my comment/improvement suggestion would incite so much debate.
I'm not really sure how I feel about this issue... On the one hand, it is a somewhat significant improvement (when "only" (I use this term loosely) 23 seconds were saved overall), but on the other hand, 23 seconds is a very good improvement and certainly warrents publication. I think the key issue for some people is, Why do you take the time to save 5 frames here, 10 frames there, etc. from various tricks, but won't redo in order to add a 32 frame improvement? Are you waiting to create a v6 of this movie that would implement the trick? Because it seems to me that redoing the movie would be much easier than making another version.
Also, I wish people would stop attacking Bisqwit for making decisions like this. Remember, first of all, that this is his site, and he has say over what goes on in it. Now, he may make mistakes, or very unpopular decisions, but I think people are getting worked up over insignificant matters. I think shouting in his face, even when he rejects a movie for a (supposedly) trivial reason, is a rude and absolutely unreasonable way to respond.
Is Bisqwit a person? Can he make mistakes? Can he make unfair decisions? Can accept one movie but reject another, even when they both have possible improvements? Bisqwit is not a robot who always makes the fairest and most balanced choices. I think the users here need to calm down and think about what the general goals of this site are, rather than nitpicking for inconsistencies.
Remember, first of all, that this is his site, and he has say over what goes on in it.
I hate this retort, always have. It says nothing.
I think the users here need to calm down and think about what the general goals of this site are, rather than nitpicking for inconsistencies.
The arguments on both sides were aimed toward the good of the site (those opinions differ in some cases though), so I'm not sure what you are referring to specifically.
Admins and other authorities should be ready for reactions on decisions regarding site content. People should be ready to argue their point if they feel the situation is bad for the site, instead of keeping quiet for politeness's sake, as the site would presumably suffer in the long run.
<Swordless> Go hug a tree, you vegetarian (I bet you really are one)
I think the rejection due to not being perfect has several factors that have to be taken into account. Important is that nearly all TASes that are submitted aren't frame perfect... even though we might not know it at the time.
There is a big difference between not using a trick or a strategy at one spot, or general sloppyness and missed tricks throughout the entire run. The amount of time needed to redo is also an important factor. It might be more fruitful for the authors to spend their time making another good TAS, than spending their time improving a few frames in this run.
The idea that someone might improve the movie might not be a pleasant feeling though (as, everytime you (or at least I) submit a TAS, you hope it to be the final version ever).
