I've spent some time reading this thread and both sides have some interesting points. I realize my words weighs like air in here as it's my first post but bear with me. First, people will have to stop comparing this with beating world records in athletic events. It's not the same by a long shot. Instead, think of it as stealing someones plans for an invention, adding some small detail and distributing it under a completely different name without acknowledging the original author. As you all know the mechanics behind a TAS, you all know how relatively simple it is to improve a run that has some obvious flaw if you only put enough time into it. As I am a regular visitor at Bisqwit's (even though not actively writing in the forums), I have noticed the regular jargon is "The faster the better" (with the exception of DD2, as made clear earlier). If we on the other hand only consider the entertainment value, both movies will do and it's really only up to personal taste (most notably the wobbling). While I sympathize with both players, it is my opinion that the natural movie for publishing would be Phil's (not only to avoid a thread like this popping up in every other new submission for a release candidate), even though I don't at all agree with his way of publishing a TAS of a game he haven't helped perfecting (in routing and glitchfinding) without acknowledging either one of the previous authors (especially sleepz but also Genisto). My final point is this: In the end, it's up to Bisqwit to decide which one gets published. If it ends up in favor of Phil, just make sure sleepz gets the credit and acknowledgement he deserves.

The final answer to the question in this thread will set one hell of a precedent.

I agree that having your run beaten by a few frames is not fun. Heck, I wasn't happy when Blechy obsoleted my Umihara Kawase run by four or so seconds. But I have to side with Phil on this one. There have been many points brought up that I agree with, so I won't repeat them, but I have some other thoughts. Disclaimer: I have not watched Phil's movie, so these are just my thoughts based on the information that I've heard. And I mean no offense to Sleepz. Let's say that Sleepz had submitted Phil's run instead of his a few months ago. Would it have been accepted? Of course. And then suppose that Phil now submitted Sleepz's run. It would be instantly rejected. It would be slower, and even if it did look a tiny bit better, it would be not enough to change that it was slower. Think being obsoleted by a run 36 frames faster is bad? Imagine being obsoleted by one 36 slower. So, if (back to normal) Phil's run is not accepted, we have now given an obvious advantage to the person who submits first. Even if someone submits a movie that is a little bit faster or a little bit more entertaining after, the movie will not be accepted. Someone working on a run can then slack off, knowing that even if the run is not perfect, it's good enough -- his or her run won't be obsoleted by missing that 2 frame shortcut. This sort of mindset is not what we want. I'm not blaming anyone of being like this, and I'm sure that Sleepz's run was not beaten because Sleepz was lazy, but the point stands. Time of submission should not be considered. I'm sure there are other reasons why giving the person who submits first an advantage is bad, but I can't think of them at the moment. Okay, now let's pretend for the sake of argument that Phil has now submitted the perfect run; the game cannot be completed a frame faster. If Sleepz's run had never been submitted, then Phil's would be accepted. Nesvideos now has the perfect SMB2 run in its collection. But because of Sleepz's run, if Phil's is not accepted, we will never have a perfect run. Nesvideos is now short of a perfect video, because someone had previously sent in an imperfect one. I do not see the logic in this. Even if Phil's run is not perfect, he should not be penalized because of previous videos. Although that's sort of misleading, since Phil did use tricks of Sleepz. How about if all the tricks that Phil had found for not for a few frames, but for a few seconds each? Another instant acceptance. "Wow, it's amazing how you found so many ways to save time!". But this run has just as many time saves as that unreal one, they just happen to not save as much as time. And since they're such small improvements, they would probably be harder to find than large ones (assuming they existed). Why is Phil wrong in finding these subtle improvements? Plagiarism is also a big concern. People shouldn't take others' runs, hex edit them in a few places, and then submit them. But if the run is played from to finish, I see no problem. The movie is entirely that person's work, even if the ideas are not. But in papers, you are allowed to cite, are you not? Someone using a technique does not give him or her a monopoly on it. I think the idea of mentioning previous submitters is a wonderful idea. Although I guess it would be fair to let authors waive this right if they don't want people to know his or her run was obsoleted :p In regards to the wobbling, I don't know, because I haven't seen Phil's run. If it really is that bad, fine, reject the run. And then accept it when he submits it without the wobbling. If the run is not accepted, and Phil is told that another run by him will not be accepted by him if it's the same length, do not do it on the pretense of the wobbling. Shifting the blame to that solves nothing. I'd rather that a decision be made (either one) rather than it be deferred.

Maybe you haven’t been reading my posts hopper, but I’ve stated over and over again that my problem with the submission is that it is an exact copy of mine and adds nothing new.

Can you explain me how is it 36 frames faster if it is a carbon copy?

You’re the one who’s making a big deal about the frames. Like you just said, “All I ever noticed was that someone found a way to improve a nearly flawless run by 36 frames.”

Imo, a nearly flawless run can't be beaten with more than 10 frames. And I don't claim that my version is near flawless.

With the wobbling, you said you didn’t want to see it constantly, yet 36 frames is enough to make you favor a video full of wobbling. And even if you really thought it wasn’t overly distracting, there are even more people that do: http://tasvideos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=86&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=60

From what I can read and remember, people were annoyed because the screen is shaking in CV3. Also, a lot of people think that wobbling is more interesting than just waiting. If people really insist, the movie can be easily edited to remove that. But is it really the main reason, I have some doubt at it.

If you're going to replace one of my runs, at least try to make something worthy of being called an improvement.

It is worthy to be published. Otherwise, I wouldn't have submitted it. I don't see any problem that Sleepz is credited or anyone else that deserves it. Ex. The Donkey Kong movie or Kung Fu before it were beaten by Deviance. Imo, by saying it's my discovery and it shall always be mine, is somewhat similar to software patents which is really bad.

About the wobblying issue, i dont like having an artificial, useless movement based on frame alternation to be present in the movie. I'd rather see a "dance" or something that looks smarter and more creative than just wobblying. I prefer to make a movie that "deceives" the viewer as much as possible to make it hard to notice that it wasnt played by a human in real time with great skills. Wobblying just makes it robotic and unnatural, and explicitly reminds us of the tool used. You may want this to be apparent, but i find it highly unnentertaing. (wobblying in real-time is acceptable, what i dont like is frame based wobble)

I could remove the wobbling before the final boss if it would help being less annoying. The final boss is easy and not long to do.

I have read this entire thread to this point and I have watched both movies several times. After much thought, I've formed an opinion about this topic. The original complaint was about Phil's run being a ripoff. He just stepped in, used sleepz' same strategies, found a few frames to save, and ended the game half a second sooner. I look at that, and I say... what's wrong with that? Didn't GuanoBowl do basically the same thing a few weeks ago with his warpless run? Didn't he say something to the extent of "I didn't copy his moves, but I tried to copy his techniques"? And everyone was okay with that. That run got published. Phil did the same thing. He didn't hex edit Sleepz' FCM file. He made his own, from scratch. He took the time to frame advance through the entire game, tracking down those hard-to-find places to improve time. From here, the debate evolved into "well, which one is more entertaining?" Many of you think that Sleepz did the better job, because Phil just copied a few of his moves and failed to identically reproduce Sleepz' cool-looking style in several areas, and added some of his own in the form of wobbling. Okay, let's put things objectively: -Many people find movies more entertaining when they know the movie they're watching is X faster than the last version, even when they can't see or comprehend the changes. I'm one of them. -Sleepz' submission clearly states "Aims for fastest time" and Phil beat him. -The debate here is about playing style. Phil did not create his own playing style, he just used bits and pieces of Sleepz' style and added some wobbling. Many people don't like this. The people who voted no did so for one or both of two reasons: 1) Style is too much of a ripoff of Sleepz (Didn't create his own style for this game, find his own techniques), or 2) Style is not enough of a ripoff of Sleepz. (Meaning, didn't look as good as Sleepz' style did, despite it having attempted to do so in several places) Here's what I propose happens. Sleepz makes a new version of this run using the few new strategies that Phil discovered, giving Phil credit for having discovered them. This way, he will hold his "hard-earned" record and preserve his playing style as well. If he doesn't want to spend the time doing so, then Phil's movie should be published and stand at status quo until someone else does.

Doesn't anybody loves the sound when Birdo spits fireball at the end of 7-1? And Toad throws a key but in fact didn't throw it? Or when Toad enter the mouth with the throwing position. I thought it is style.

With the wobbling, you said you didn’t want to see it constantly, yet 36 frames is enough to make you favor a video full of wobbling.

It's not full of wobbling. If it was constant it would be annoying, but it's not, and it's faster, so I'm voting Yes. I'm also not going to get into a war of words with anyone. I have stated that I want the movie to be judged on its own merits. I feel that 36 frames is a significant accomplishment for SMB2 and am voting Yes. You may feel that it is too similar to the precedent run and vote No. Democracy is wonderful. I just hope the outcome of the vote isn't based on egos or sparing anyone's feelings. I've said my piece. Good day sir.

How much faster do you, Sleepz, think is enough to be "better" than your TAS? I think that 1 frame is enough and 36 frames = 36 times better than that.

How much faster do you, Sleepz, think is enough to be "better" than your TAS? I think that 1 frame is enough and 36 frames = 36 times better than that.

You should read this entire thread once again and think about what has been stated, I dont think either Sleepz or anbody else feels like repeating whats already been said.

Don't think he said what was "enough", but I'll read everything once again. Sorry if I missed something. Besides, I admire your work Sleepz, I have nothing against you. Ok, I just read everyting through. And my question wasn't answered. Even if it isn't anything new (except of the fact that it's faster) it's always better with a faster run. I also think that it would be cool if there were runs, which were made just for the entertainment, just to show all the cool stuff you can do, without thinking about the time. I've seen a few runs like that.

I think the point that supermegavkoy is making is that obviously, at some point, a movie is considered to be better enough that its predecessor that it should be accepted (assuming the entertainment hasn't significantly gone down). The only amount that makes sense is the least possible one, or one frame. Otherwise, you won't have people willing to make new runs, because for all they know, it could be for nothing. Choosing any other value is pretty arbitrary, and would create more arguments each time one of these movies is submitted. This would be most unfortunate. Take Blechy's Umihara Kawase run for instance. Yes, it was a few seconds faster, but Blechy gained 90% of this time in the second to last level. In the previous ones, he was only doing better than me by a few frames. If he had been discouraged because he felt that the time wasn't enough, we'd still have my slow Umihara run. Plus, I think that is pretty cool, because it encourages looking for all of these new shortcuts. Come on Sleepz, I'm waiting for your version where you beat Phil by 2 frames!

Plus, I think that is pretty cool, because it encourages looking for all of these new shortcuts. Come on Sleepz, I'm waiting for your version where you beat Phil by 2 frames!

I’m pretty sure you were just joking in your last sentence Bob, but just to ask, why would you be waiting for it? You’d just be watching the same run over again, and I would have wasted my time because I really just accomplished nothing. If anything, you should be disappointed, since I released a “new improved run” that, as far as you can tell, is still the same old run. Like a TV network showing a re-run when they told you it was going to be a new episode. Also, 2 frames might be tough to hype up. Now here’s something to think about. From what everyone posted, many people seem to have the similar opinion of “If it’s faster(regardless of amount) and isn’t less entertaining” to be the end-all criteria for one run to obsolete another. Keeping that in mind; what if someone were to take every single run on this site, copy them move for move(so they’re no less entertaining), and bringing each one down an extra frame or two so all the new runs are now faster than the existing ones. Now if this person were to submit all these runs, would you all vote “Yes” and have every TAS maker’s run replaced? Would you all still be like, “His run’s are faster, and they aren’t any less entertaining. They’re all one frame closer to perfection, I don’t see any problem. Forget the previous run and author, just judge this one on its own merits. I vote Yes!” Then every run on the site will be replaced with a carbon copy run –1 frame, all made by the same author. Now if you see no problem with this situation and would vote Yes for every single run, you’ve lost your mind and shouldn’t even be allowed to vote. But if you voted No because you changed your mind and think there are some exceptions to the end-all criteria, then the SMB2 situation is also an exception.

The situation here, it is not a carbon copy. So the situation is different.

Forget the previous run and author

I don't think anyone is doing this... don't movies that obsolete older ones generally say something like "this run is x faster than Previous Player's version"? Would it be fair if the movie page said something like "this movie optimizes Sleepz's route by 36 frames," or am I not understanding the situation correctly?

Phil, Its a carbon copy -36 frames, but I'm sure people can tell the differences right from the get go. Btw, I really like your freefall with Toad in the beggining, and I like how the first 20 seconds of your run looks totally different from mine. Spacecow, everything in that line is just quotes from others that recently posted.

It's pointless. Jealous

I just watched both of the runs, and I have to say that I preferred Phil's overall. His style was a bit better, with more precise jumping and some boss fights. Also he actually does things while waiting for the end level doors to open instead of just holding right until the beak opens. I did enjoy how Sleepz got a shyguy embedded in the wall at the end of one stage, but Phil managed to revive a defeated Birdo on another, so I think that wins out. I'm going to vote yes now.

Wow, if reviving a defeated Birdo is your idea of elite playing ... everyone who has ever played the game has done this. It's not a trick or a glitch, it's just what happens when you run to the left and then back to the right.

Ah, I didn't know that. Well, I've still stated all my other reasons.

I think this has gone too far. Since when has the author been an issue? Personally I couldn't care less whether this was Sleepz's or Phil's movie, I'd still vote yes because this movie is, in my opinion, better than the existing one. And this is mainly due to its length. It's not like Sleepz's work has been for nothing. Of course people will remember that the previous version was done by Sleepz. That was the movie that inspired Phil to make an even better movie, and I am very disappointed in the way Sleepz has reacted to Phil's movie. Of course, no one's ever obsoleted MY movie by less than a second, so I can't claim to fully understand how Sleepz is feeling.

It's pointless. Jealous

Jealous? Now I wish I could withdraw my yes vote... I voted yes in order for sleepz's run would still be online.