This topic is for the purpose of discussing #2828: scrimpeh's NES Castlevania "no subweapons, no damage" in 13:18.44

It was a nice run, a bit slow paced, but clearly optimized. I don't really have anything much to say... it's basically a good run but not particularly remarkable. A weak Yes vote will suffice, an SD and HD encode is coming up.

Voting no due to random choice of goals and general yawning accross the run.

I recall from the published run that there's a way to damage bosses by running into them. If it was possible it would be cool to beat the game without ever swinging the whip or using any other weapons. That might be more interesting to me than this run. As it stands I don't think the game lends itself very well to this kind of minimal weapons run (although you collect whip upgrades) since it's really linear and looks just like a worse version of published run. That being said just because I don't like it doesn't mean other people won't, and as far as I can tell the run is well made. I will refrain from voting.

The whole point in a clever Castlevania TAS is damage knockback and clever weapon management throughout. Without that, it's just a snoozefest. Voting no.

I recall from the published run that there's a way to damage bosses by running into them. If it was possible it would be cool to beat the game without ever swinging the whip or using any other weapons. That might be more interesting to me than this run.

My understanding of that glitch is that it involves hurting the boss while yourself being hurt -- some of the damage you take is shared with the boss. You still need a way to damage the boss.

I actually really like this concept for a run, at least in theory. This game is quite hard, and the goals make it even more ridiculous. I definitely liked some of the close shaves you had dodging enemies, and the mummy fight was awesomely impressive. I also liked the fight with Death, and jumping over Dracula's fireballs was surprising. However, in practice, these run goals don't produce the most entertaining movie. The published run is amazing primarily because it showboats the use of the cross and holy water for big point combos. (There are other fun things about that run too, but the showboating particularly stands out.) While this run has its moments of greatness, the whole pace of the run suffers from the goal choices. I feel like this run merits a comparison to the Contra pacifist run which only uses the standard weapon. That run, by avoiding killing enemies, adds palpable extra challenge, much like this run does. However, no one part is made too much longer in the pacifist run. Also, there isn't that much entertainment that is sacrificed in the pacifist run (since the spread gun optmization, although technically impressive, doesn't have as much "wow" factor IMHO as comboing enemies with the cross subweapon in this game). Overall, I like this run enough to vote Yes, but I doubt that enough people will agree with me to publish it. Good job anyway though on the technical side, scrimpeh!

Challenges like these never did hurt, right?

Found time to watch the encode (thanks, Flygon!), and I enjoyed it. The White Dragon evasions and the Mummy fight were my favorite bits. Nice work!

Since you made a run with arbitrary goals like this, I would have liked to see a bit more to it, such as getting all the hidden secrets as well.

YouTube Archive collection Archive download

I like this run. I find it entertaining enough to vote yes.

Arbitrary Much? You get a MEH.

So your restrictions are to take away everything that made the published TAS interesting? Watching you walk under ledge after ledge that could easily be damage boosted on to is rather painful. 13 minutes of walking and climbing stairs ftw Sorry, but that's a big no vote from me.

I enjoyed the movie and see scrimpeh's point. Given the game's difficulty, performing a minimal weapon run in a short amount of time without taking damage is almost impossible in real time and clearly shows superplay. I feel kinda bad to vote No, as this movie was well done, and I liked it. However, giving what the published run is, I don't think it warrants publication in another category. Your goals made the TAS longer, less entertaining and, like adelikat said, technically less interesting. I think it deserves its place in Gruefood Delight though, and really hope you continue working in this game. I'd love to see a run with more interesting objectives.

Congratulations... your TAS put me to sleep... I have to vote no for bad goal choice.

Very clear no here. Had some mistimed parts, and lacked flow (for instance when waiting for bridges ... you had some time earlier to use those frames, or may even have been able to luck manipulate them away, so you aren't spending time in the video just standing on a ledge waiting for a moving bridge). Even if the whole concept of the submission wasn't horribly boring, the time could quite likely be improved.

That was a well done run but it was extremely boring. I'd recommend taking a crack at the normal Castlevania run. (Voting Meh)

I actually really like this concept for a run, at least in theory. This game is quite hard, and the goals make it even more ridiculous. I definitely liked some of the close shaves you had dodging enemies, and the mummy fight was awesomely impressive. I also liked the fight with Death, and jumping over Dracula's fireballs was surprising. However, in practice, these run goals don't produce the most entertaining movie. The published run is amazing primarily because it showboats the use of the cross and holy water for big point combos. (There are other fun things about that run too, but the showboating particularly stands out.) While this run has its moments of greatness, the whole pace of the run suffers from the goal choices. Overall, I like this run enough to vote Yes, but I doubt that enough people will agree with me to publish it. Good job anyway though on the technical side, scrimpeh!

I find this run to be entertaining enough to have my Yes, not getting hurt is something I like to see in TAS videos,! Gets a bit boring but I find it fun to watch! Yes vote from me!

Is there a reason why you don't jump to grab the orb after the boss battles, as in the published run? That aside, I am surprised by some of the overpoweringly negative criticism. When I play Castlevania I use a huge amount of lives and powerups, so I found this concept interesting. I strongly dislike, and always have, that whenever someone submits a run with goals that deviate from the standard any%, 100% etc. there is a deafening cry of "arbitrary!" "random!". I'd like to thank scrimpeh for trying to give Castlevania tasing a new lease of life. While I hope that more authors make creative completion runs of great games I agree with adelikat's sentiment that when you remove damage and subweapons there isn't much left. I found the Grim Reaper battle most entertaining and the bat battle least interesting. Without the damage boosts etc. the linearity of this game is quite outstanding and damage seems too easy to avoid to warrant a separate category. This balances out to a meh vote from me. On the arbitrariness/random goal choice issue... I would consider such a goal to feel 'tacked on', as if the author created the goals to fit the movie rather than the movie in accordance with the goals. Arbitrariness in Castlevania would be "doesn't use holy water", "takes damage only in level 6" etc. Arbitrariness has nothing to do with entertainment. It describes goals that are inconsistent or goals that cannot logically be derived from the game's challenges. The goals here are quite clear. No damage at any point of the game. No subweapons at any point of the game. They are consistent and they notably affect the way the game is played and so can be rationalised by comparison to the game's challenges.

I found this to be arbitrary and boring. Meh vote.

That aside, I am surprised by some of the overpoweringly negative criticism. When I play Castlevania I use a huge amount of lives and powerups, so I found this concept interesting. I strongly dislike, and always have, that whenever someone submits a run with goals that deviate from the standard any%, 100% etc. there is a deafening cry of "arbitrary!" "random!".

I agree with you for the most part, but in this case it's not just arbitrary or random. I've watched all the Castlevania TASs made since Bisqwit published his first few completed TASs of this game. Initially knock back was only used in one or two places, and no glitches were used. Then as each new TAS for this game was made, more and more places were found to exploit knockback, exploit special weapons, exploit damage on the boss. It got considerably more exciting with each new TAS. We all looked forward to see what new ideas Bisqwit, Phil, Genisto, and Morrison would come up with next. It was especially refreshing when seemingly counter-intuitive items and paths were chosen which ended up being faster as it allowed more knockback and more boss damage glitching. Without all that, this just seems like a jump back to before Bisqwit's first TAS. Being only 00:04.20 seconds slower than the first published run despite no leeway for damage or special items seems like a technical feet. But to me, this just feels like a 2004 TAS.

While I don't find the low% concept particularly applicable to Castlevania, I found this run to have its merits. It does seem boring if you never consider how hard the game is to play with restrictions like this; it suddenly makes a lot more sense afterwards — it's unlikely you'll ever see an unassisted run that attempts the same kind of challenge and comes even close to the final time. And I was actually surprised how lenient the hitbox was towards projectiles. I do feel the movie should undergo another revision in foreseeable future in case it gets published. It's clearly not up to the same standard the any% is, although it's not obviously unoptimized.

That aside, I am surprised by some of the overpoweringly negative criticism.

This.

Too arbitrary of a goal. It took out the interesting damage boosts and made some of the boss fights rather long and tedious.