Submission Text Full Submission Page
Hello guys it's finally finished, the new 11 exit TAS of Super Mario World!

Game objectives

  • Emulator used: lsnes rr2-β18
  • 11 magnificent exits, what do you want more
  • still 11 exits
  • you can count them if you want, it's really 11!

Comments

You can go ahead and skip YI2 if you want, I mean it's not like there is something important happening right there... Do not think I wrote a code in RAM that allows me to change my position at any time by using the 3rd and 4th controller!!!! I totally wouldn't do that!!!
I know that YI2 and overall every level is not optimized but since this is not TASVideos Pro I thought I'd go with it.

Level comments

No I don't like submission texts because I have to write stuff here. I won't waste my time here on the regular TASVideos. but go check out the detailed explanation on TASVideos Pro.

Nach: Before I get into the judgment for this run, I'd like to go over the route and warp background as exists in Mario games till this point.
In the original Super Mario Bros., the game expects you to complete 32 levels spread across 8 worlds in order to complete the game. However, they added warp zones, which allow one to skip a bunch of levels. They hid the first one in 1-2, by going over the end of the underground ceiling, which allows you to warp to worlds 2, 3, or 4. The only other underground level in the game, 4-2, also has a warp zone at the end if you go over the ceiling, which skips only two levels, taking you to world 5. It was probably a prank from the developers for those who found the first warp, and they made this warp so easy to get to with a tall pipe to stand on reaching the ceiling near the end. They hid a proper warp earlier in the level which can take you to worlds 6, 7, and 8. For TAS videos, we feature the fastest route as can be used with warp zones, as well as a warpless run.
In Super Mario Bros. 2 USA, they dropped selective warp zones, and instead offer sub-con warp pipes. They also littered these throughout the game, and existed everywhere you could find a potion and a pipe in the same location. For TAS videos, we feature the fastest route as can be used with warp pipes, as well as a warpless run, and the fastest run with a suboptimal character.
In Super Mario Bros. 2 Japan, they also littered warp zones throughout the game, but this time around decided to offer backwards warp zones, and put them in every single place someone thought they were being clever by jumping over a flagpole. For TAS videos, we feature the fastest route as can be used with warp zones, as well as a warpless run, albeit with some special circumstances due to multiple ports of the game and multiple players.
Super Mario Bros 3. radically changed the way things work. The game now offers 8 regular worlds, each being a map. The amount of levels in each world is no longer uniform. Levels now may have multiple ways to be completed, and some completion methods may change how the map is affected. You can also get some items to alter or bypass things on the map. Due to the map style, many levels are also completely optional. For larger skips, warping, the game featured warp whistles. A warp whistle would take you to a special 9th warp world:
Which world you used the warp whistle from would determine which of the 3 paths in this world you would begin on:
Worlds 1, 2, 3: First path of 2, 3, 4.
Worlds 4, 5, 6: Second path of, 5, 6, 7.
Worlds 7, 8, 9: Third path of 8.
You could technically go backwards to 2 from 3, 5 from 6, or replay 2, 3, 5, 6, and 8 from themselves. For TAS videos, we feature the fastest route as can be used with warp whistles, a warpless run which doesn't use any world skipping, but does take the fastest possible route through the levels and maps in each world, and a 100% run in is development.
Super Mario World came along and kept the map idea, and multiple level endings, but dropped the item idea, and also shook things up. A lot more emphasis was placed on multiple ways to complete levels, and this served more to alter the map and game progression than items. Since there are no more items, such as warp whistles, special locations hidden with top secret secondary endings off a beaten path were now used to reach the game's 9th world, the warp world, known as Star World. The game also has a secret 10th world, but that's not relevant here.
If one wanted to come up with a warpless Super Mario World run akin to the previous Super Mario Bros. games, one would simply need to TAS the fastest route that avoids Star World. The 96-exit branch is akin to a 100% branch that would exist for Super Mario Bros. 3. However, this is much less natural within SMW, as the multiple exit idea with map changes is now fused with the warp idea, so a clear correct non-shortcut route through the game is no longer obvious without direct comparisons to previous games.
The real fastest run of Super Mario World, warped, akin to the previous games is the fastest route which makes use of Star World, or as it's currently known 11 exits.
Unlike the previous games so far on this non-pro site, no one has submitted a route which can complete the game by warping more than the official warp methods allow for. But with Super Mario World, our beloved Masterjun has found a way to break the game and warp to the ending from the very beginning of the game, featuring a faster than fastest route. This makes naming for the real fastest route difficult. Right now it's 11 exits, even though that's not necessarily the best appellation for it.
Comparing this run and an 11 exit run shows considerable difference between the two, and indicates there is a naming problem. Either this run needs an additional appellation, or the other set of runs need something more appropriate. However, what is up for judgment here is not some logistics issue of naming, but rather whether these two runs are compatible in their goals, and serve as the same route.
This run adds a TSR into the game to allow one to change Mario's position within levels by entering warp codes on the extra controllers. However, one questions why not do the same thing for the map itself? Why specifically these 11 exits? If one wants to really push the boundaries of the notion of 11 exits completed, the 11 exits completed should be anything but the standard ones, as we would for TASing notions elsewhere.
In the thread, I enumerated 6 possible ways to handle this judgment. I will elaborate on each, and my judgment upon them.

Accept as new branch

This would mean we'd call this run 11 exits, TSR or something like that and publish it alongside all our other numerous SMW runs. But why 11 exits? If you have a TSR, why not 10?

Obsolete specified branch

This sort of goes against the spirit of the existing branch. If we look at route name alone, it should technically obsolete it. However once code is being added/modified, why not go all the way? This run is trying to pigeon hole the criteria in drawing the lines between the different ones, without drawing any additional lines between the types of abuse occurring to the game itself. After all, the current 11 exit utilizes built-in abuses for completing levels too quickly, so one questions, why not this too? After careful examination of what the audience wants, from the audience members I determined are representative (meaning the ones that agree with me), there should be a line drawn between any run which adds/modifies code and all other run routes. Meaning this run is now the same branch as the fastest run.

Obsolete a different branch than the one specified

This would mean obsoleting the fastest run, which this is slower than it!

Double-obsoletion

Neither of the two above make sense, and this even less so.

Publish on TASVideos Pro instead

Now I strongly considered this, especially based on feedback from Warp. Fitting username considering the issue at hand.
However, based on an existing precedent where a special branch distinguishing technique can be used for a warped or warpless run and we only publish the warpless, which shows off the technique more, I can't accept this, as we [|already have a 96-exit TSR run up on pro] [EDIT: joke link removed].
Perhaps the rules on pro should be different, but without generous donations from people like Bobo T. King who gave us unlimited access to his credit card before he reported it stolen, we simply can't afford to right now. Therefore we're going to limit pro to the precedents we have on free TASVideos right now.
However the run on pro should probably say more than just 96 exit in order to better differentiate it from the ones here.

Reject this sucker.

Since none of the above seem to apply...


Active player (441)
Joined: 3/21/2011
Posts: 127
Location: Virginia (United States)
Can I just point out the fact that the movie is incredibly unoptimized and honestly shouldn't be accepted regardless of whether people believe the concept should or not? He even points it out in the submission text, sheesh.
YouTube Channel - Twitter Current projects: Sutte Hakkun, Hyper VI, RTDL, own hacking projects
Masterjun
He/Him
Site Developer, Expert player (2047)
Joined: 10/12/2010
Posts: 1185
Location: Germany
kaizoman666 wrote:
Can I just point out the fact that the movie is incredibly unoptimized
This makes sure that this movie isn't going to be accepted. I do want another reason for the rejection though, because if this will be the only one, I could just make an optimized version, which would just delay the real reason.
Warning: Might glitch to credits I will finish this ACE soon as possible (or will I?)
Former player
Joined: 2/19/2007
Posts: 424
Location: UK
This was a fun TAS. Thanks, Masterjun! Some opportunities to entertain were missed (which I understand, since it had to get done in time for april fool's day), but it was still a good watch. I was entertained and I think this should be published. Edit: On further thought, I think that while this one is a good april fool's submission, it's not optimized enough to be pblished. But I think an optimized version would be publishable. The question is what category is should be published in. This TAS is very heavily glitched - it uses a glitch that allows arbitrary code execution, and uses that to finish the game using the normal shortest route - the 11 exit path. So the most natural category for this TAS would be "glitched normal route", which would be in line with our old naming scheme, and also with schemes used in unassisted speedrunning. Another suggestion has been to let this obsolete the normal "11 exit" TAS. I do not agree with that. The whole point of that TAS is to complete the game as fast as possible without using completely game-breaking glitches. That it completes 11 exits is quite incidental. If somebody discovered a secret exit in yoshi's island 1 that lead to bowser valley 1, then I'm sure that would obsolete the "11 exit" TAS. So in my opinion that category is misnamed - the category name captures a minor detail of the TASes that are in it (i.e. that the complete 11 exits), rather than what the category is actually about (fastest normal completion). And this leads to things like suggesting that a heavily glitched TAS should take the "11 exit" record, leaving us with no fastest low-glitch category any more. It's a bit where having a race where cycles and cars are in different categories because it's fun to see how fast one can go under pedal power. But instead of naming them "cycles" and "cars", or perhaps "no engine" and "no hold barred", they're called "yellow vehicles" and "any color vehicles" because all the cycles happened to be yellow during the first few races. And then somebody makes a yellow car and uses it to win the "yellow vehicles" category, completely removing the original point of that category. As a small side note, I'll point out that depending on what one means by completing an exit, it's possible to do this much more quickly: Just set the level completed flags directly in memory, and then jump to the end. Things inevitably get vague when arbitrary code execution is combined with other goals.
Joined: 5/2/2006
Posts: 1020
Location: Boulder, CO
Patashu wrote:
So it got renamed something like 'any% no memory corruption' Then it was pointed out: "Isn't the chuck eat/orb glitch memory corruption? It puts something invalid into a memory address via an invalid process." So it got renamed something like '11 exits'
No problem so far.
Patashu wrote:
But we all know the problem with that - you're looking at the thread dedicated to it!
The problem is not that this run was assigned to the '11 exit' branch, the problem, if anything, is that '11 exits' is a bad concept for a branch. Why not just pick 11 levels (not even including bowser's castle) then glitch to the credits? It would meet the requirements of the branch. Pick a set of goals such that the run that completes those goals is entertaining to watch, not the other way around. (which would be finding an entertaining run and changing the goals so that nothing can ever obsolete it) Anyway, whatever the outcome of the publication for this tas, thanks to masterjun for making it. You have done some fun and amazing things to this game.
Has never colored a dinosaur.
Player (80)
Joined: 8/5/2007
Posts: 865
Twelvepack wrote:
Patashu wrote:
So it got renamed something like 'any% no memory corruption' Then it was pointed out: "Isn't the chuck eat/orb glitch memory corruption? It puts something invalid into a memory address via an invalid process." So it got renamed something like '11 exits'
No problem so far.
Patashu wrote:
But we all know the problem with that - you're looking at the thread dedicated to it!
The problem is not that this run was assigned to the '11 exit' branch, the problem, if anything, is that '11 exits' is a bad concept for a branch. Why not just pick 11 levels (not even including bowser's castle) then glitch to the credits? It would meet the requirements of the branch. Pick a set of goals such that the run that completes those goals is entertaining to watch, not the other way around. (which would be finding an entertaining run and changing the goals so that nothing can ever obsolete it) Anyway, whatever the outcome of the publication for this tas, thanks to masterjun for making it. You have done some fun and amazing things to this game.
Does TASVideos' formatting allow for very long branch names such as, "The specific 11 levels intended by the developer to comprise the minimum number needed to complete the game"? Because that's basically what you're suggesting. And if you'll say, "Yes, that is what I'm suggesting," then fine. Do you really think that belongs on the front page? I'd rather have that stuff implied or at least behind the scenes.
Joined: 4/3/2006
Posts: 269
Funny run! I know it's not news any more that SMW is totally broken, but it's still nice to watch. We have to recognize that people spend time to figure out what code to write and actually test it to see that it works. Yes vote!
Joined: 5/2/2006
Posts: 1020
Location: Boulder, CO
Bobo the King wrote:
Does TASVideos' formatting allow for very long branch names such as, "The specific 11 levels intended by the developer to comprise the minimum number needed to complete the game"? Because that's basically what you're suggesting.
If it were up to me, I would have no '11 exit' branch at all, and would have the branches for this game be as follows: 1. any% 2. glichless any% 3. glichless 100% (96 exit) Glichless any% would probably happen to be 11 exits, but there is no reason to enforce 11 exits as a goal when it comes about a a consequence of the run being glichless. this is the same way that 16 star SM64 runs stopped making sense. the goal there would have had to have been something like "no glitching through walls in the basement unless you use MIPS". This is obviously an absurd category for a branch, so we made the right call in not allowing it. The bottom line is that any run that allows heavy glitch abuse will do more than take a free win on Iggy's castle. Tl;DR -- I don't think 11 exits makes sense as a branch, but if we keep it, this should obsolete the previous one.
Has never colored a dinosaur.
TASVideosGrue
They/Them
Joined: 10/1/2008
Posts: 2792
Location: The dark corners of the TASVideos server
om, nom, nom
Joined: 12/29/2007
Posts: 489
While I don't totally mind this getting rejected, I do mind the fact that the current movie's branch name wasn't changed. As plenty have pointed out, "11 exits" is not a good branch name. It's the same reason why the first Pokemon Gold run had its branch name changed from "all gyms" to "no memory corruption". Of course, a simple name is more difficult to come up with here, as "no arbitrary code execution" still allows the previous YI3 credits glitch run through. I'd recommend something along the lines of "no arbitrary execution, defeats Bowser" or something like that. Would that work?
Patashu
He/Him
Joined: 10/2/2005
Posts: 4045
Zowayix wrote:
While I don't totally mind this getting rejected, I do mind the fact that the current movie's branch name wasn't changed. As plenty have pointed out, "11 exits" is not a good branch name. It's the same reason why the first Pokemon Gold run had its branch name changed from "all gyms" to "no memory corruption". Of course, a simple name is more difficult to come up with here, as "no arbitrary code execution" still allows the previous YI3 credits glitch run through. I'd recommend something along the lines of "no arbitrary execution, defeats Bowser" or something like that. Would that work?
Reposting this because yes, it does need to be read before discussing what to name categories here: http://tasvideos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=372097#372097
Patashu wrote:
Twelvepack wrote:
So my bullshit detector is on the fritz, so I'm not sure how much of this thread is serious. Either way, this version of "11 exits" with heavy glitch abuse is faster than the published "11 exits" with heavy glitch abuse, so go-go gadget publication.
The existence of this TAS as an april fools joke is to do with a bit of tasvideos history. Let me give you the summary: How categories used to be named on TASvideos: Arbitrary code execution, glitches to credits: 'glitched' Forgoes arbitrary code execution, uses orb glitch and everything else, 11 exits: <nothing> or 'any%' Then, a new ruling: "Let's not call categories 'glitched'. If it's the fastest category, we call it any%/<nothing>. Anything slower than that has to explain what goal or restriction makes it slower." How the categories are named afterwards (I may have the steps out of order but it illustrates the problem): Arbitrary code execution, glitches to credits: <nothing> or 'any%' Forgoes arbitrary code execution, uses orb glitch and everything else, 11 exits: something like 'any% no arbitrary code execution' Then it was pointed out by an SMW TASer: "Wait! What about the previous glitched TAS, that spat out a null sprite on a brown platform in Yoshi's Island 3 ('brown platform glitch' and jumped to credits early that way? If the categories are meant to be comprehensive about what the TAS must and must not do, then I could take the old obsoleted glitched TAS, submit it again and it would override 'any% no arbitrary code execution' even though it really shouldn't." So it got renamed something like 'any% no stun sprite glitch, no brown platform glitch' Then it was pointed out: "This is a really awful, verbose category name. It doesn't roll off the tongue, and people not familiar with the game's intricacies in its glitches won't have a clue what this category is actually about. More to the point - If you find another distinct game breaking glitch, then you have to update every other category and make the definition even longer. Eventually it won't even fit in one line." So it got renamed something like 'any% no memory corruption' Then it was pointed out: "Isn't the chuck eat/orb glitch memory corruption? It puts something invalid into a memory address via an invalid process." So it got renamed something like '11 exits' But we all know the problem with that - you're looking at the thread dedicated to it! I suspect next it will be renamed something like 'any% no heavy memory corruption' (How do you define heavy vs light? An intuitive definition can work for a while, but only until a memory corruption glitch that isn't obviously heavy or light comes along.) or we will just give up and relinquish ourself to arbitrariness once more. (Also, what do we do with things like SMW 96 exit/SMW2:YI 100%, where lots of techniques that would make the run faster but more tedious/boring like L+Ring and chuck eating are banned? In an objective/comprehensive categories world it should become part of the category.) (And if I'm missing any key points in this summary lemme know)
OK, now suggest away :)
My Chiptune music, made in Famitracker: http://soundcloud.com/patashu My twitch. I stream mostly shmups & rhythm games http://twitch.tv/patashu My youtube, again shmups and rhythm games and misc stuff: http://youtube.com/user/patashu
Editor, Experienced player (570)
Joined: 11/8/2010
Posts: 4038
It's wonderful to see people discussing the slower run's branch name! I like how amaurea spelled out what the published "11 exits" run does:
amaurea wrote:
finish the game using the normal shortest route - the 11 exit path
How about something like "shortest intended route" or "shortest normal path" to convey that it follows the fastest route to Bowser intended by the game's developers?
Joined: 12/29/2007
Posts: 489
But this run does follow the "shortest intended route". There needs to be a name that - Doesn't allow this run - Doesn't allow the YI3 credits glitch run (which doesn't involve arbitrary code execution) - Allows the current run marked as "11 exits"
Joined: 7/2/2007
Posts: 3960
I'm just generally inclined to say that any run that uses arbitrary code execution is given the tag "arbitrary code execution" and the absence of that tag is indicative that we're operating under more "normal" circumstances. Once you take over control of the game's execution you can do anything you want, so any prior categories just go out the window. Any%? 100%? The only thing you can't do with ACE is a glitchless run, by definition.
Pyrel - an open-source rewrite of the Angband roguelike game in Python.
Joined: 5/2/2006
Posts: 1020
Location: Boulder, CO
Zowayix wrote:
But this run does follow the "shortest intended route". There needs to be a name that - Doesn't allow this run - Doesn't allow the YI3 credits glitch run (which doesn't involve arbitrary code execution) - Allows the current run marked as "11 exits"
Why is it important that the branch exclude this run? More importantly, why should the branch include the current run marked as "11 exits"? If the goal is for the "11 exit" branch is to show the 'normal' route, why should it allow severe glitches that make the run feel completely unlike a normal run?
Has never colored a dinosaur.
Emulator Coder
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
CoolKirby wrote:
It's wonderful to see people discussing the slower run's branch name! I like how amaurea spelled out what the published "11 exits" run does:
amaurea wrote:
finish the game using the normal shortest route - the 11 exit path
How about something like "shortest intended route" or "shortest normal path" to convey that it follows the fastest route to Bowser intended by the game's developers?
You might want to see the novel in the submission post to get a grasp on path possibilities, how it relates to other games, and ideas on naming.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Player (26)
Joined: 8/29/2011
Posts: 1206
Location: Amsterdam
It's important to note that this run got rejected over poor viewer response (since that disqualifies it for moon tier, and the movie goal is not eligible for vault tier). So it's not necessary for the branch to exclude this run.
Emulator Coder
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Radiant wrote:
It's important to note that this run got rejected over poor viewer response
If that's the case, you're asking for a more optimized and exciting version of this run to be submitted.
Radiant wrote:
So it's not necessary for the branch to exclude this run.
I rejected the entire branch.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 12/19/2007
Posts: 40
The reason this submission doesn't obsolete the 11 exit branch is that it's assumed that you cannot use ACE in that branch. ACE is a separate branch for this game, meaning that all other branches are inherently "no ACE." ACE is already automatically excluded. And the "game end glitch" run is not an intended path. So those aren't the problem with the name. The only problem then that I see with the 11-exit branch is that it would be conceivably possible to create a game that still did 11 exits, but not the exits intended. That's why I would go with "shortest intended path." If you don't think that "no ACE" can be the default, then just add that on to the end. "shortest intended path (no ACE)."