I think that for puzzle games, part of my joy is in simply trying to follow what is happening - trying to work out what combo a 'shapes-in-a-well-style-puzzle' player is setting up. I'm terrible at RCs so couldn't follow along at all but it was still enjoyable thanks to the music and the simple visual appeal of the colours slowly amalgamating. Though far from the best TAS, I think this should be published as it's worth watching - if someone wanted to see a Rubic's Cube game beaten, this would have little reason to disappoint. I think that the play:menu time ratio is slightly unfavourable but I don't think it should be changed - the 2x2 was a funny joke, the 4x4 was specially fun to watch and the 3x3 seems best included to add a sense of linear progression. OT: I approve of the publishing times - at least a fortnight seems sensible.

om, nom, nom... blech, salty!

Aw, it got rejected! I had hoped that spinning them would make it good enough to be accepted, but I guess not. Oh well. Thank you all for watching, and if you did not enjoy it then I hope you at least enjoyed our submission text!

Meh, not surprising. I was only trying to pad out gruefood delight with more good movies anyway :\

I think it is because adelikat hates alden. /me grabs popcorn for ensuing flame war

I tried to draw a Rubik's Cube in Paint as a consolation prize for alden and Kumquat:

adelikat, I have decided to challenge your decision. I apologize in advance if I have misunderstood anything. First, you claim that the currently published Solitaire and Monopoly runs are similar to Rubik's World in that they are all based on real-life games, but different in that they show something extraordinary while Rubik's World does not. That is certainly true of Monopoly – the chances of that occurring in real life are not good at all, assuming everyone is playing fair – but I fail to see how Solitaire is any different. Yes, many deals of Klondike are unsolvable, and perhaps the one in the published movie is one of the fastest. The chances of that specific deal occurring in real life are low, but it is not easily distinguishable from other deals in a way that makes it seem extraordinary, just like any given Rubik's Cube is indistinguishable from another to the untrained eye – with the exception of obvious differences such as a cube that can be solved in one turn versus one that cannot. Second, you mention speedcubing and a few variants, and you also say that comparing our run to the world records is trivial. I agree – we should compare this movie to how an unassisted human would perform playing Rubik's World. But tying in to the first point, I think that just because humans can quickly solve a Rubik's Cube unassisted (with or without extra conditions) does not make our movie less impressive in the eyes of an average person. After all, the Solitaire movie is slower than the unassisted record and it was still well-received. Third, you claim that the input is un-novel and within human abilities. No. It is not. While it is neither groundbreaking nor the greatest display of super-human abilities, it is still a display of super-human precision. Touching the screen in the wrong place or at the wrong time will cause the cube to stop moving completely at best and spin wildly or turn an incorrect slice at worst. And I tried to make the input a little interesting for the 4x4x4 cube and credits. Have you watched it with input display turned on? Besides, doing everything frame-perfectly itself is super-human. And it should not matter what the input is as long as the audience is entertained and the goals are met (and acceptable). Finally, the main reason you rejected it is because you feel that speed-solving a Rubik's Cube is not best-suited to TASing. Perhaps it is not. But it works well enough to entertain many people.

I agree in general that point and clicking on the right frame is not super-human enough to be at all interesting. However, I do think it compares well to the solitaire run: the runner luck manipulates a quick and easy stack, and then they go through the motions of solving it quickly. Not that I think this is very much above "meh."

Since one of my runs is being brought up, I guess I should weigh in. The solitaire movie is somewhat different than this one in terms of "super-human" play in that knowledge of which cards are where is vital to the TASer, while with a cube you have all the information available to you at the start. It is very possible to lose that very hand of solitaire I played through "normal" play, which I did a couple of times throughout the making of that movie. While I don't believe that it would be possible to pull off this TAS in real life, the thing that decreases some of the entertainment for me is the lack of the unforeseen. I see this movie as a big brother of the Myst TAS: there was a lot more "route" planning involved, but in the end the mechanics are very similar. One thing I'm not aware of that could sway my opinion greatly is how easy it is to start a 4x4x4 puzzle with different configurations. If the same configuration comes up all the time it's much less interesting than if every time you get to that level there's a different alignment. If the second scenario is the case with this game, I do this this should be published, as it could potentially lead to luck manipulation for better starting cube configurations and faster routes. If the configuration is not unique to each game played, then I agree with adelikat's decision. EDIT: I just read through the movie description and see that some luck manip is possible, but I'm not clear on how much. Clarification from the authors would be appreciated.

Certainly! First, your DS's (or emulator's, in this case) nickname, comment, and language settings affect the RNG that generates the cubes. The combined length of your nickname and comment is what matters most, but the two different nickname lengths with the same total length can generate different cubes. For example, this movie requires you to have a total length of either 29 (if your nickname is 3 or 10 characters long) or 30 (if your nickname is between 5 and 9), and your language must be English. (Nicknames that are 1, 2, or 4 characters long will not work.) Second, advancing through any menu or message, including pausing and unpausing the game, will change the RNG. There are three messages in the beginning that you can go through back and forth very quickly, so you could manipulate quite a few different sets of cubes without the average viewer even noticing! So, yes, it is certainly possible that someone could find a better set of cubes.

Given that information, I think this would be a good addition to the site. Thanks for clearing that up Kumquat!

<div id="tabber" class="tabber_vert"><div class="tabbertab" title="Hide"></div><div class="tabbertab" title="Show">Nickname: Noob Irdoh Comment: Oh... It's an archer?</div></div>

I love you, sir. And I support mmbossman's proposal of unrejection.

Support does seem to be in favour of it, judging by the yes/no list. And though I wasn't going to say anything, I was kinda disappointed that this got rejected - it seems like the kinda oddball thing that widens the site's appeal and increases variety.

Ok, I wasn't aware there was any significant luck manipulation involved. I guess that changes the situation enough. I'll unreject and restore to new status. My vote is still no. But I'll let someone else handle this.

I was a bit disappointed by the 4x4 solution. It seems to have used a suboptimal algorithm for solving it. I'd vote meh if I knew for sure that a faster solving algorithm has already been found, but I don't.

Thoughts: The fact that the 2x2x2 is one move away from solved is mildly humorous. The solution in the movie for a 3x3x3 is 20 moves. This site claims that any 3x3x3 cube can be solved in 22 moves or less. http://cubezzz.homelinux.org/drupal/?q=node/view/121 While watching the 4x4x4, I began to feel like the movie is just a demonstration of what many computer programs can already do in solving Rubik's Cubes, just played by a user. Here is a video of a computer solving a 3x3x3 at multiple speeds: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1uc2Iteyak I don't really feel that this video contributes much more than that particular youtube video except for theoretically being played on a DS with a stylus. The concept is interesting, but I feel that these automated solvers have you beat on novelty. Meh. EDIT: I also enjoy how mz's MSPaint Cube has two cubes with one same color on two faces, making it extremely unsolvable. =p

Nice manipulation on the cubes but it was mildly boring to watch. Meh vote.

More games should be beatable by automated solvers freely available on the internet.

Thank you very much for giving our movie another chance!

Nickname: Noob Irdoh Comment: Oh... It's an archer?

I love you, sir. And I support mmbossman's proposal of unrejection.

Um, thanks, but I am not a "sir". (Or maybe you were talking to alden, but I wrote that one, so...)

I was a bit disappointed by the 4x4 solution. It seems to have used a suboptimal algorithm for solving it. I'd vote meh if I knew for sure that a faster solving algorithm has already been found, but I don't.

As far as we know, FiveStage444 is the most optimal solver currently available. The cube we solved was at least 8 turns faster than the solution for any other cube we checked, so I think we found one of the fastest ones.

The solution in the movie for a 3x3x3 is 20 moves. This site claims that any 3x3x3 cube can be solved in 22 moves or less. http://cubezzz.homelinux.org/drupal/?q=node/view/121 [...] The concept is interesting, but I feel that these automated solvers have you beat on novelty.

Yes, the upper limit is known to be 21 face turns. A quarter turn and a half turn each count as 1 face turn, but Rubik's World only allows quarter turns. The original solution to the 3x3x3 cube in this movie took 17 face turns but 21 quarter turns, and I shortened it to 20. For comparison, the currently known upper limit for quarter turns is 29. And I disagree that automated solvers are more novel than our movie, especially the one you linked to. Not only are the cubes in our movie spinning, but the 3x3x3 and 4x4x4 cubes were solved with fewer moves than suggested by the most optimal solvers we could find! Also, Rubik's World has nice music.

For comparison, the currently known upper limit for quarter turns is 29.

Ah, I had an afterthought that something like this might be the case. Thanks for pointing that out. I still emphasize my opinion regarding automated solvers. This movie is clearly borderline. I don't think that there would be any inconsistencies with accepting it; I'm just not sure how much novelty and entertainment it actually contributes.

How much can the RNG be manipulated? Could it be possible to manipulate it so that it gives you a scrambled cube which actually has some "pretty pattern"? That would be awesome.

Kumquat, you have convinced me that there is a lot more depth going on here than I originally gave it credit for. Not just the luck manipulation, but the process of solving it as well. I approve of this acceptance.

Meh, not surprising.

OK now I'm surprised! Thanks folks!

How much can the RNG be manipulated? Could it be possible to manipulate it so that it gives you a scrambled cube which actually has some "pretty pattern"? That would be awesome.

That depends on how the cubes are generated. It seems likely that the game generates them by applying a randomly generated list of moves to a solved cube, so it should be possible to manipulate a cube with a specific pattern. It would just be a question of how long it would take to find one.

Kumquat, you have convinced me that there is a lot more depth going on here than I originally gave it credit for. Not just the luck manipulation, but the process of solving it as well. I approve of this acceptance.

Perhaps we could have avoided the initial rejection if I had spent more time making sure the submission text was clear and informative instead trying to be funny, so I want to apologize for that. But thanks again, to you and the rest of the staff! And to all of the viewers, too, of course! (And thanks to alden, my brother, and Steve the Smilin' Egg, as well!)

Meh, not surprising.

OK now I'm surprised! Thanks folks!

Surely you mean, "Well, color me surprised!"