I'm going to ignore most of the walls of text above and just focus on a point.
That we have a lot of SMB branches and not others. If there is any precedent I hope this publication accomplishes is to move away from a "too many branches" mentality.
Having said that, we need to have criteria, which was laid out here.
1) Entertaining (with a super majority audience acceptance %)
2) Not-redundant to other branches by having different gameplay or tricks or glitches. Must be clear to a non-expert of the game (this is my problem with Super Metroid branches, the routing is very different, but if you don't know the game, it is hard to see)
3) Be technically impressive, ideally in a way that stands out from other branches.
As long as each publication meets these criteria, I don't care how many branches a game has.
Or Mega Man. There's no zipless runs of any of the games to feature zipping glitches, and I'm not really sure why.
This is a curious example to bring up. As such a publication would easily be accepted here. If we don't have one, it is because someone hasn't made one. We can't control who makes what.
Thank you. I didn't know that about linking movies.
There's no reason not to delineate. Server space can surely afford one or two more runs of certain games, especially when the game frankly has more runs than it should to begin with.
- ACE (fine)
- Screen warp Glitch (now obsolete by ACE which also uses this glitch)
- Doghouse glitch (DX) (always obsolete, but only warp/ACE method for DX, ACE run in non-DX uses this glitch too)
- Playaround (fine)
- Out of bounds
It looks baffling that there's no actual playthrough of LA. Objectively, nothing about the current OoB run (#4017) obsoletes the one before it since it's, again, objectively, a different branch. Whereas we have at least one run that ACE obsoletes but coexists with. I'm iffy on the Doghouse glitch one even being up for DX but it's technically a different game and as such its only form of warping or ACE (it isn't, just lining out a point here) should be allowed too.
For the record, I would support coexisting 100% and any% no OoB runs of LA and LADX, even if it is terribly redundant, for the same reason.
But ACE definitely obsoletes screen warp since it even uses it as part of the setup.
No Out of Bounds (any vector to enter a wall or dense object unintentionally which sends you to a new screen or area unintended to be in for normal gameplay, usually it "rejects" you out of one of the sides and you warp into a new room) really needs to be a category for a good many games---Zelda is one notable instance. It doesn't remove any instances of superhuman feats, it still allows a lot of showing off. That's kind of the point---it does let you show off.
I think the issue with save corruption vs. Coin Case is that both cases are either ACE directly to win the game, or a glitch powerful enough to cause ACE but not actually using it for ACE and still winning the game with it. The difference between using arbitrary code execution to pull the credits or using the same glitch capable of arbitrary code execution to put you in front of Red and automatically win is almost nothing.
I think the Gen 1 TASes highlight an interesting non-ACE glitch (IIRC the $F8FF glitch cannot execute arbitrary code) to win the game in record time.
So... I do agree with you that "game end glitch" is too unhelpful of a description. Delineating ACE from non-ACE with it seem silly when both will be "game end glitches".
Prior to being accepted (Which I wasn't aware it was, good that it was, though!) the discussion for the current "Catch 'Em All" seemed to be discussing if it's even acceptable before rules changed to explicitly allow it.
Wouldn't Patashu's problem be solved by only using glitches for the extra 26/27 (if counting Mew) Pokemon that can't be obtained via any means by playing the game? I don't think LWAing or any other Pokemon obtaining glitch is something anyone will argue with against if it's for Pokemon that literally cannot be obtained otherwise.
Alternatively, would completing the Pokedex as much as possible within one cart and without glitches (124 for Red/Blue, 129 for Yellow) be a category that can be explored? It was brought up once before Lucky's glitched CEA run but the only response to it (other than Patachu's question) seemed negative.
It's funny because I think of the four points you listed the first three are reasonable and the last is quite baffling. If you didn't enjoy the movie or didn't find it interesting because it was slow and wasn't different enough to you, I think that's completely reasonable feedback and I respect your opinion.
I can't understand at all your final point and it looks like I'm not the only one. At the risk of repeating what has already been said: how is the movie any less relatable than any other TAS? You can try and beat the game yourself in as few A presses as possible. I guess you could do it in a few hundred. The TAS will inevitably do it in fewer presses and you really have no chance of getting close. Similarly you could try to beat a game as fast as possible. The TAS will be faster and you have no realistic chance of competing unless it's a very simple game. If you think the lack of comparability to human runs is a reason for it not being entertaining to you, then fair enough, but understand that for a lot of people this isn't really relevant, especially on TASvideos. I think a lot of people actually enjoy TASes precisely because they're so different to RTAs.
Lastly, I don't think you get to define what is or isn't a TAS. There are lots of TASes (and speed runs) that put time as a secondary goal.
The issue is that challenges are supposed to be relatable and entertaining. Low-level runs of RPGs aren't fun or relatable if you watch a video of someone save scumming/TASing every hit to miss you at a 0.01% chance for an hour. That's not practically a low level run, it will never actually happen.
I'm not sure why this is so hard to understand. Right now, it's not a challenge, because it's a TAS, there's no such thing as difficulty. At the same time, the goal is bleakly arbitrary.
This isn't relatable.
The last sentence is also hypocritical. If I have no right to an opinion or right to express it, neither do you. You're accusing me of a bigger podium than I have by doing the same thing you are accusing me of.
"Superplay" also feels subjective. Visually, nothing is impressive at all about this run. The player gets stuck in the ground for minutes at a time, waits for a turtle to waddle, hits it to go up a bit, repeat, so on. That's not visually impressive.
Is it technically impressive? Yes. So would a great many "boring" board games.
But 99% of people watching this are not going to be realizing why it is technically impressive.
My biggest problem with this movie was knowing it'd get published as it represents incredibly bad problems with the publication system here.
- Super Mario Bros. runs are frequently turned down due to being "hard to accept". This doesn't seem to be particularly true.
The issue is I've seen this as a rejection reason for additional runs of other games, or for "arbitrary goals" like not taking damage at all.
It's also used as a reason to reject ROM hacks or paradoxically have ROM hacks obsolete one another. It was recently said a new non-Kaizo ROM hack of Super Mario Bros. 3 would obsolete Mario Adventure if accepted---why? What would it even have in common with it?
There's no "high sense of standards", Super Mario Bros. has seven published runs. Two of them seem to be arbitrary when separated from a first glance but I don't think "all coins" and "all item boxes" can be done in the same run, making the separation necessary and not arbitrary. Neither description mentions this, though.
- Runs with very little original gameplay obsolete full game runs instead of existing concurrent as a different branch because "we have too many branches", said by Judges who accept the seventh Super Mario Bros. entry.
I already pointed this out with Link's Awakening where we have no real runs of it. The closest thing is the 27 minute run of Link's Awakening DX where it consistently goes out of bounds, obsoleting a run that doesn't, and two different "warp glitch" runs of Link's Awakening (DX) exist too, differing by the setup at best.
Or Mega Man. There's no zipless runs of any of the games to feature zipping glitches, and I'm not really sure why.
- Categorizing runs is "too difficult" because glitches "are arbitrary", as a run is accepted with an arbitrary and non-definite goal like "don't press A very much".
I have unironically seen "zipless" runs be considered "arbitrary and will be rejected if submitted" here. Link's Awakening would be solved by restoring 2565S as a branch titled "No Out Of Bounds". That's not arbitrary, it doesn't go out of bounds at all unlike the run that "obsoleted" it.
I don't organize my thoughts well. This post could probably be condensed like many posts I make. Guess why I never pursued a career in journalism?
tl;dr: In a vacuum, this run doesn't have an issue. It isn't very interesting to me but it doesn't have to be. It being accepted represents serious flaws in the publishing system as a whole. It should've been immediately rejected given what many other runs and branches have to put up with, but it wasn't. It was rather accepted for every reason those types of runs are rejected.
Isn't this just the standard save corruption run but with extra steps? I'm failing to see how it actually differs from the published Crystal run.
CasualPokePlayer wrote:
Patashu wrote:
Similarly, I'd love to see an obsoletion in this vein (preserving the spirit rather than the rules of the category) for another pokemon classic cut down in its prime, [2653] GB Pokémon: Red Version "Gotta Catch 'Em All!" by MrWint in 1:54:56.62. I don't know what specific ruleset the RTA equivalent to the category uses to avoid devolving into one-god-glitch but it managed to remain exremely cool ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3myc23dd1_Q ) so maybe there's hope for TASes too?
The ruleset the main CEA leaderboard uses primarily stops "one-god-glitch" by banning "mass farming glitches". What's a mass farming glitch and how does it different from a non-mass farming glitch? It's extremely subjective, in effect it is basically "farming glitches which make run boring are banned, farming glitches which do not make run boring are allowed." I'm not too sure how much footing such a category can have on TASVideos considering this flimsy rule.
That's a bizarre ruling considering we have plenty of runs with entirely subjective and abstract goals that tank entertainment hard, even for games "hard to get a video published for".
Obtaining all Pokemon is not arbitrary like only pressing a button a certain number of times or refusing to even press it at all. It's a very clear-cut goal, even more than an actual speedrun is.
It shouldn't matter how "entertaining" it is to complete said goal. Some Mega Man and most Sonic speedruns aren't even watchable due to it just being a jerky camera speeding through a level but get accepted. ACE runs where a game is completed in mere seconds get accepted despite not being entertaining on any level (like the SMB3 one).
It completes a goal, which is something actually concrete and non-arbitrary.
Ordinarily no, TASes are not supposed to relate to RTAs. But this isn't even a TAS. It's an arbitary player-enforced goal.
Minimum time is a player-enforced goal just the same as minimum A presses. And this most certainly qualifies as a TAS. I'm honestly not sure how this couldn't be a TAS. It is first a superplay, and second a speedrun, and it is tool-assisted. By definition and by convention this is a TAS.
Acumenium wrote:
I also can't see how this differs very much from a normal non-ABC run of Super Mario Bros. other than it being painfully slow.
- The same levels as the warps run are used.
- No new screens are visited.
- New techniques are shown that immediately proceed minutes of waiting in the floor.
- It is a TAS of a challenge that is supposed to be player relatable and yet none of the new tricks used to get stuck in the floors repeatedly and so on are actually possible in real time.
It differs by focusing on an entirely different primary goal than the other TASes: Minimum A presses. (with fastest completion and maximum entertainment being secondary and tertiary goals).
So what if it's the same levels as warps? That doesn't detract from the entertainment of the run, and if anything, speeds up the TAS by skipping levels, which is what you seem to want.
Reviewing the run, I don't see any instances of "minutes of waiting", whether they proceeded a new technique or not. There's one instance at the beginning of 8-4, where the player waits about 30 seconds at most, and even so they are still moving around.
Unless I missed something, there's nothing in the submission notes that say it was "supposed to be player relatable." And again, it's a TAS, so there's no reason it should have to be completable by a human.
Acumenium wrote:
It didn't lead to an interesting movie at all. Play the normal TAS at 0.5x speed, it'll still go faster and be more interesting than watching an enemy waddle across the ground for minutes at a time.
54 people thought it was an entertaining movie, so it must be fairly interesting. Playing the encode back at a faster speed wouldn't change the number of frames needed to complete the game with the least number of A presses. And it's not possible to playback the TAS on hardware at a non-hardware speed.
Acumenium wrote:
This fails at being entertaining to anyone wishing to watch the challenge for the minimal A Button aspect due to not being possible to imitate
There are no rules against a TAS being impossible for a human to imitate; again, that is the point of making TASes. To create the perfect run, according to certain goals.
What is a "superplay"? Common usage of the term "TAS" refers to tool-assisted speedruns.
It differs by doing the same task but slower? That is your argument? Not one screen here differs from any shown in the main TAS.
The argument of claiming it's "akshully superplay not speedrun" and the focus on "why are you so worried about branches?" feels strange when you have asinine cases like #4017 GBC The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening DX (USA v1.0) in 27:55.02 by TwistedTammer obsoleting #1462 GBC The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening DX (USA v1.0) in 1:00:02.68 by Swordless Link. This causes a bad case where there's no actual full playthrough of Link's Awakening.
In that case, it was determined making a new branch "did not make sense" even though one run more or less walks through walls and the other does not.
You have:
- GB ACE
- GB Screen Warp
- GB Playaround
- GBC Warp Glitch
- GBC Out Of Bounds But No Warp Glitch (#4017)
We have five branches for the same game and none of them actually go through the game without going out of bounds? And why do we have the woefully redundant GBC Warp Glitch and GB Screen Warp?
I find this especially odd since the no warp branch was restored to Pokemon Red/Blue/Yellow at one point when all of the ACE/SC/MC glitch runs were obsoleting full playthroughs. Did this fly under the radar or is "no out of bounds" considered, for whatever reason, "arbitrary"?
I'm really curious how you didn't notice how many minutes of this run were spent waiting for something to happen. Or do you think slowly scrolling through a level to wait for an enemy to finally waddle to a specific point isn't "waiting" since the player is moving, but slowly?
No, TASes do not have to be player relatable. Generally speaking, challenges like these are supposed to be though. Which I've explained many times. You haven't seen any of the explanations?
Does the poll really count when almost every thread features the Judges having to yell at people what the poll even means?
If this run is accepted we will have seven runs of the NES version of this game alone.
- FDS Super Mario Bros. (JPN) "-3 stage ending" in 02:44.61 by HappyLee.
- NES Super Mario Bros. (JPN/USA) "warpless" in 18:36.78 by HappyLee & Mars608.
- NES Super Mario Bros. (JPN/USA) "maximum coins" in 26:10.25 by CuteQt, Tehh_083 & HappyLee.
- NES Super Mario Bros. (JPN/USA PRG0) "warps" in 04:57.31 by HappyLee.
- NES Super Mario Bros. (JPN/USA) "warpless, walkathon" in 25:19.23 by Mars608 & HappyLee.
- NES Super Mario Bros. (JPN/USA) "all items" in 19:48.68 by DaSmileKat, HappyLee & Mars608.
- #7094: HappyLee, Kriller37, DaSmileKat, Kosmic & periwinkle's NES Super Mario Bros. "minimum A presses" in 10:24.39
I don't want to hear about how there's "competition" for space when it comes to any other game or ROM hack again even if the ROM hacks have nothing to do with each other.
I'm not really a fan of using words like arbitrary in these discussions. My quick google search yields the following definition: "based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system". Minimizing A presses (and then time) is a clearly defined goal and was presumably chosen because it's a technically interesting challenge with notably different gameplay to the traditional speed-first categories (how interesting you find it is obviously subjective). I don't consider that to be random choice or mere personal whim. But even if you think it is arbitrary because the goal choice is still in some sense subjective or random, so what? Why is it a problem if it leads to an interesting movie with notably different gameplay to already existing categories? If you weren't entertained then fair enough, but I don't understand comments like "no because it's arbitrary". I think whenever these offbeat categories come up the movie itself is the argument for why the seemingly arbitrary goal choice is a good one: if the movie is good then the category is good.
I don't think a TAS being comparable to RTA runs is really relevant in relation to potential publication on TASvideos.
Ordinarily no, TASes are not supposed to relate to RTAs. But this isn't even a TAS. It's an arbitary player-enforced goal.
I also can't see how this differs very much from a normal non-ABC run of Super Mario Bros. other than it being painfully slow.
- The same levels as the warps run are used.
- No new screens are visited.
- New techniques are shown that immediately proceed minutes of waiting in the floor.
- It is a TAS of a challenge that is supposed to be player relatable and yet none of the new tricks used to get stuck in the floors repeatedly and so on are actually possible in real time.
The last one is particularly relevant, I think, as that removes a major entertainment factor of the ABC in the first place.
It didn't lead to an interesting movie at all. Play the normal TAS at 0.5x speed, it'll still go faster and be more interesting than watching an enemy waddle across the ground for minutes at a time.
If a low-level challenge of an RPG had you able to beat the first boss at level 3 at the earliest, or level 1 with the use of TAS tools like save/load states and so on, a TAS of it isn't very interesting for the purpose of watching someone try to beat it.
---
You're basically saying that being superhuman (TAS only) is a flaw of this TAS. I've never seen such an argument before.
Because being unrelatably superhuman is harmful to this challenge in terms of entertainment.
I gave an RPG scenario just above this quote. Look at it.
When the infamous "No Sphere Grid, No Summons, No Customization, No Overdrives" challenge of Final Fantasy X was finally beaten, many had done it with emulators, but those weren't entertaining runs. Everyone knew what it would look like to beat it, it's just that for many years, the RNG never lined up. Save state abuse wouldn't have led to anything entertaining, and even this video would probably be seen as uninteresting to those who aren't interested in low-level challenges or who might be but aren't aware how brutally hard this actually is and how low the chances to win even are.
This fails at being entertaining to anyone wishing to watch the challenge for the minimal A Button aspect due to not being possible to imitate, and it fails from a general entertainment perspective due to how boring it is with all of the forced waits on the same old screens as every other speedrun of SMB.
Which is the real thing here. The walkathon would probably be more boring if it was the same boring route like this, but it's not. It being warpless showed off a lot more of the game and showcased far more areas where not being able to run really hurts.
I don't see what point you're proving here.
This run is entirely arbitrary. It assigns a "goal" at complete random. Another run for a game that is the first of its kind is going to be rejected on the basis that beating the game-assigned high scores is "arbitrary", but a player-assigned goal with no clear end ("62 A buttons") is somehow acceptable as the umpteenth branch of a game?
Board games are typically disallowed here no matter how technically impressive because they're boring. Why is this okay as an umpteenth branch?
So this is a minimal A button challenge, not minimum.
Minimal and minimum, mean the exact same thing.
minimal is just minimum + al. Where -al is just changing the word from a noun into an adjective.
Regardless, how is the least amount of time, different from the least number of button presses? Both are equally arbitrary, it's just that time is more often chosen as the primary goal.
They have the same root word.
https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/277236/what-is-the-difference-between-minimum-and-minimal
Per Oxford and Merriam-Webster, both sourced there, the words are indeed a bit different and minimal refers to something that is almost at the lowest point, but not quite.
Speed is an arbitrary goal if there's no end point.
How fast you can run does not matter if it's not specifying for how long, or for what distance. Everyone can be Usain Bolt for one step but I don't think they'll be like him for a ten yard dash, or for an hour.
Super Mario Bros. has a clear ending point: saving Princess Peach. If ACE could do this at the title screen, that would be the fastest method to do it, like in Mario 3.
I wouldn't even compare this type of run to the submitted and likely to be canceled run of SMS California Games as that at least lists a defined goal that is easily understandable: you beat the default high score. That is the "endpoint". Going past it makes no sense per the game itself.
HappyLee wrote:
Acumenium wrote:
No one can compete because it's strictly a TAS run due to the bizarre frame-perfect glitching and use of multiple directions here.
Of course people can compete. This TAS can be obsoleted if a lower amount of A presses is reached, or a faster time with the same amount of A presses.
People can aim for fewest jumps or minimum A presses in a real-time gameplay also. It's a less popular goal, but still some people do. The goal (A Button Challenge) is more popular in SM64, and there were actually wiki pages created for this challenge.
https://ukikipedia.net/wiki/A_Button_Challengehttps://smo-speedrun.fandom.com/wiki/Minimum_A/B_Presseshttps://pannenkoek2012.fandom.com/wiki/A_Button_Challenge
In a TAS, entertainment isn't all about speed. If you like speedy TAS, I've made lots of speedy SMB TASes over the years. Hopefully this TAS shows that SMB TAS isn't all about holding right and run all the way through, and there could be interesting alternative goals other than fastest time.
This isn't a speedrun though. It is tool-assisted, but it's not a speedrun.
I also hesitate to say that anyone can compete, these glitches are 100% tool-assisted. No one is doing these in real-time. Therefore this run is in the same category as a Kaizo ROM hack or something: it needs tool assistance, but then it loses all of its luster.
This also isn't very entertaining. Most of the run is waiting for paint to dry enemies to finally move.
Minimal A button presses is entirely arbitrary, and notice that the first and third links you referred to do not use the term "speedrun". Considering its creator, Pannen, calls it the "A Button Challenge", I don't think it's in good faith to call it a speedrun, especially when it just isn't one. But if you didn't call it one, how does it fit on a site with speedruns?
No one can compete because it's strictly a TAS run due to the bizarre frame-perfect glitching and use of multiple directions here. Walkathons can be competed with by normal people. Doesn't matter if the TAS is faster---you can at least try to play against it, and it's a goal that real people can try and entertain.
The problem is, pressing B 0 times is not arbitrary, you can't do better in a B-less run than that.
This is not the "minimum" amount of A presses---ACE aside, this can and will change over time, look at it in Pokemon Red/Blue, etc., it lowers as new glitches or quirks (buffering, etc.) are found. So this is a minimal A button challenge, not minimum.
If ROM hacks have to enter a fierce survival of the fittest to determine what can occupy the limited spaces of Moons when the hacks only faintly relate to each other in terms of entertainment space, I am very curious why entirely arbitrary goals like only pressing one of the buttons [x] amount of times is something that can be kept and maintained as a tier, especially when the goal has no possible speed focus.
Routing can determine how quickly you can complete a walkathon, so there's still an element of speedrunning to those. This has none, speed is not a focus.
This will probably be accepted as it has a lot of Yes votes. Perfectly okay with that. That's how these systems work.
This is technically impressive but incredibly unentertaining.
Too many spots are a waiting game to resume playing the game... like normal. The end of 1-1 is the first time I noticed this: waiting... then you go on the pipe thanks to the Goombas, and the game resumes as normal. And yet, it's probably the shortest one.
4-1 had So. Much. Waiting.
Some of the new tricks---like the wall-jumps at the beginning of 1-2, were really neat, and part of being technically impressive. The ending of 1-2 and all of 4-1 had the koopa-in-the-ground trick too, which was neat. Then it was joined by Mario-in-the-ground. Which was also neat.
A walkathon isn't very comparable, it's not an arbitrary goal, is something anyone can try and compete against (just don't press B), etc. This isn't. The goal is arbitrary and there's far too much waiting. The game turned into a bizarre autoscroller.
No vote.
---
Radiant wrote:
I suppose that since we have a "minimum B presses" run (a.k.a. the walkathon) it makes sense to also have a "minimum A presses" run.
I must say I don't find the movie entertaining per se. But I agree that this is a technical achievement and worthy of publication.
That's not the "minimum B presses", it's literally none.
This does press A though, and quite a lot. It is the definition of arbitrary.
That's valid and a very fair way to assess it.
These runs are mainly meant to be visually appealing---we all know a TAS is going to complete it. And unless it's a Let's Fail or something on YouTube, you'll always see someone beat a game.
It's not even for RTA frustration, no one will ever watch it and be entertained by the endless save/loads from failing to do something. These runs of these hacks are literally just meant to show off and I think this video does it well enough with some situations that just don't happen in the game.
I'm not suggesting to change the rules---especially for this hack which I do not feel strongly enough about to be fighting for it like that, but why are rules so strict for hacks? Is it a server space issue?
A majority of voters voted Yes.
What is the criteria for voters finding it entertaining for a hack to be accepted?
- Yes: 60%, 6 votes
- No: 30%, 3 votes
- Meh: 10%, 1 vote
Factoring in what a "Meh" vote is, it's at 65% approval right now. Do we need a 2/3rds supermajority or something?
I disagree that complaining about something not being updated to modern resolutions (like majority of the publications) compared to something like melted encodes is counterproductive, especially when people are actually doing reencodes to begin with other TASes.
If they want to complain about it they might as well learn to be an encoder and learn how to encode every publication pre-2015. This is not something that we should be condoning. It's almost like bumping publications going "hey new encode please".
Do you know what complaints are or are you taking offense to the notion of ever-progressing video technology relative to what you did a decade ago?
I'm not sure why you're getting so absurdly hostile here. There is nothing wrong with a list of TASes that could use a remaster. No one is telling you to do it or insinuating you did a bad job years ago, or whatever.
It seems for most games they would be the same category but that run opts for obtaining all keys and maps/etc. as well, which a 100% might avoid.
Additionally even 100% has quirks. The Zelda Fandom Wiki lists oddities like the "Stone Slabs/Beaks" as required in Link's Awakening/DX, but not Maps or Compasses.
Thanks for the insight. This was an interesting rabbit hole.
http://tasvideos.org/4145S.html
What was the decision to call this an "all items" runthrough? Would "100%" not ordinarily include, say, maps and compasses?
I'm mainly asking because the definition of "100%" seems divisive for about every Zelda game. I've seen as many people not include maps and compasses as those who do.
Or was "all items" (which means upgrades, too) a marker for clarity to declare that, yes, everything is obtained?
Yes, the "All dungeons" TAS is very outdated for this, and other, reasons. A new run would improve it by quite a lot. One of the problems, the same reason why I also quit TASing A Link to the Past, is a logical ruleset with defining what glitches that should be allowed or not... It's tricky.
I think the RTA category of "no wrong warp" works here as that rules out the pseudo-Doghouse (behind a cave entrance/etc.) used in the current, largely redundant "all dungeons" run.
Similarly, ALTTP has people discussing how much they're allowed to use exploration glitches and glitches with the same function but a different name ("bottle adventure") instead of just... not.
---
I have a question. Can you "shield boost" in LA past a one tile pit?
I know you can damage boost past them, like so:
https://i.imgur.com/WuNtMeZ.gif
But what about via the shield? Or does that not propel you enough?
That was a suggestion for a category, as in "the intended route for a game", as opposed to something with major sequence breaks.
To clarify, this changes some games that almost force you out of "intended" route like Pokemon Red/Blue/Yellow or their remakes.
It actually takes a lot of conscious effort to do the 4-7th gyms in order that most don't take. Sabrina is typically the 5th for people, but many also don't even see the Celadon Gym until later when they're stumped since it's on the dead-end part of Celadon.
Pokemon Gold/Silver/Crystal and their remakes have a similar issue occur twice! The seventh Gym can be fought any time after the fourth and usually is done out of its intended order. The developers may have intended this to be true anyway since the sixth Gym is regarded as far more challenging.
And then there's Kanto where you have to do A LOT of sneaking around to reach Brock (the "intended first" Gym Leader in GSC Kanto) as your first.
I don't see the appeal of Kaizo ROM hacks personally. However, I can tell this is a well-made ROM hack, and the run seems to be well-made, although Kaizo ROM hacks typically only have one way to do things anyway, so...
The underwater parts looked fun. Really wish there weren't the auto-scrolling bits---even in a Kaizo setting, they end up more boring than challenging.
So I'm giving this a Yes vote. It isn't my cup of tea, but it doesn't have to be either. For ten minutes, this was pretty entertaining, and I like the hard work put into this by both the runner and creator. It shows off some interesting quirks (mostly with the Tanooki suit) that you don't see in normal playthroughs of SMB3, so that's interesting. I had no idea you were temporarily invulnerable after coming out of the statue before this when it was used to walk on those harmful plant enemies.
Well it’s pretty clear that kicking dirt on people doesn’t work regardless of who does it first.
What more can be done?
I already said what I had to. I guess I could stop responding, but that changes as much as turning into the human doormat you want me to be. It's also some very strange false equivalence to claim that responding to someone bullying you is "literally as bad or worse" than the bully doing what they're doing.
I also want your opinion on an actual Judge coming in to start stirring crap with their disregard and insults toward me. That feels like some wildly inappropriate behavior from people who are supposed to be "pillars of the community".
EDIT: Worse yet, that "Judge" is a MODERATOR and did that?
I well admit I am quite angry here. Also, respect is earned, not given. So far I've been called names (mostly stupid, sometimes crazy, irrelevant, etc.) and treated like absolute garbage for suggesting Judges, who watch every movie anyway, take the time out to warn people when videos feature flashing lights or flickering screens.
So yes, I well admit I am not acting very "respectful" to people who are so far kicking dirt on me for suggesting that there's a growing problem with published videos that can be fixed with maybe five seconds of a Judge's time when they're watching the videos anyway.
I'm struggling to get the people who want to keep calling me stupid and crazy to even read anything said. A Judge swarmed in here to disregard every single thing I've posted as "literal absolute insanity". What the HELL kind of behavior is that?
Then the other two people refuse to read more than a few words in any given sentence. It's as if Twitter is too novel-length to them.
Don't be surprised someone who you kicked dirt on wants to do the same to you.
and all you can do is attempt to dish out insults.
From the person who brings you greatest hits it is literally quoting, like:
No you don't get a redo on that, I'm honestly not responding to you after this. Your comments are baseless and have no valid point.
Anyways I can't be bothered reading what you wrote to feos, cause it's more of the same stupid invalidated stuff
so I'll just jump to grabbing what you wrote in context and staring at how ridiculous you sound. I'll also put emphasis on what part I'm staring at you on.
Get over it.
Great to know you're full of it and I don't have to take you seriously.
Ok, you're hissy fitting
Yeah, you don't have a point. You're crying now because I dared to call you out on your BS 4chan tactics and think it's "offensive" to be called a troll as you are literally trolling.
Get over yourself. Learn to read. FULL SENTENCES. Learn civility too!
