Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(190)
Joined: 11/21/2010
Posts: 913
Location: Tennessee
NMcCoy wrote:
A thought I had: What if minimal runs were scored as frames * presses (with the lowest being the best)?
I don't think they should be combined at all whatsoever; you would inevitably have to sacrifice presses for speed.
By the way, in an attempt to breathe life into this project, I created a TAS of Donkey Kong Jr. yesterday. Yay...
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(190)
Joined: 11/21/2010
Posts: 913
Location: Tennessee
I voted no. For starters, this game makes for a bad TAS, as shown by MUGG's TAS of the first Wario Ware game. As each micro-game takes the same amount of time to complete no matter what you do, the only room for possible improvements is in the navigation of the menus and the boss stages, neither of which are particularly technically impressive. So, these factors, it's hard to vote any other way than no.
The other question is whether this, like its predecessor, should be put in Gruefood Delight. Sadly, I'm not too confident in this. The reason why MUGG's run is fun to watch is that he completes each micro-game in the most impressive way possible. Your run, on the other hand, finishes tasks in the fastest way possible, making the vast majority of the movie play itself. Just look at 5:09: why keep the plate straight up at all times when you can stop spinning and pick it up right before it falls? You tried to do some interesting things with the bosses, such as Ashley, but others were incredibly boring, such as Kat and Ana's. I feel that if you redid this run with entertainment as a higher priority that it would be a lot more fun to watch. That said, it'd be very hard to make a run of this game that is publishable.
Good luck with your future runs!
P.S. I'm not sure what you did even constitutes as beating the game...you unlocked the credits and then triggered them.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(190)
Joined: 11/21/2010
Posts: 913
Location: Tennessee
I am not sure how to vote. The Scrap Brain glitches look nothing like zipping and I accept them as legitimate, but at the same time, you are skipping most of the level. Is there no goal we could use that forces you to take "a" normal route without being too arbitrary?
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(190)
Joined: 11/21/2010
Posts: 913
Location: Tennessee
Kirkq wrote:
Ferret Warlord wrote:
Listen, I know the game is glitched all to heck and back... But can we please put up a more cohesive screenshot? I tire of seeing screenshots that look like they were scribbled into Paint by a five year old.
I second this. I think it should be obvious what the game is by the screenshot.
I made a point of picking a frame where Mega Man was not distorted at all. I'm not too attached to this screenshot honestly, but I think sparky or the other authors would be best to determine if it should be replaced or not.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(190)
Joined: 11/21/2010
Posts: 913
Location: Tennessee
TASVideoAgent wrote:
DarkKobold: Accepting as an improvement to the "2p warps." I removed the branch, to stay consistent with other publications. Using warps is considered any%, and is similar to SMB1, 2, and 3. Many 2 player movies do not have the 2 player branch name, such as Contra, Super C, Double Dragons, and other Battletoads movies.
Umm, are you sure this don't mean that this obsoletes 1p warps? There is no current 2p warps run; the last one was obsoleted by warpless. I figured that, considering 1p warps was the current fastest run, this would replace it as the branchless run of the game.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(190)
Joined: 11/21/2010
Posts: 913
Location: Tennessee
DarkKobold wrote:
Brandon wrote:
DarkKobold wrote:
Brandon wrote:
Edit: Not sure why you clarified by editing, but sure. So are you suggesting that we have a non-named branch, warpless, and 1p warpless? That seems fine.
I was already clarifying in my post while you wrote yours.
I'd assume the new warpless will be 2 player, and faster than the one player - thus, the 1 player category would be obsolete as well.
Is there no benefit to having 1p runs? I thought we supported such branches.
Only when it is faster than the 2+ player - at least, that is my interpretation.
EDIT: Or it adds something substantially different.
With the new glitches, the bike scene would never appear on any of the runs.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(190)
Joined: 11/21/2010
Posts: 913
Location: Tennessee
DarkKobold wrote:
Brandon wrote:
Edit: Not sure why you clarified by editing, but sure. So are you suggesting that we have a non-named branch, warpless, and 1p warpless? That seems fine.
I was already clarifying in my post while you wrote yours.
I'd assume the new warpless will be 2 player, and faster than the one player - thus, the 1 player category would be obsolete as well.
Is there no benefit to having 1p runs? I thought we supported such branches.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(190)
Joined: 11/21/2010
Posts: 913
Location: Tennessee
DarkKobold wrote:
Brandon wrote:
"Warps" is a better branch name than any%. There should only be one warped run, but I still defend both warpless runs. Also feos, considering that you have improved your original submission a few times, I'll just wait for acceptance to encode.
Actually, this should have no branch name, really.
Look at Super Mario 1-3, for example. They are all any%/warps/whatever, however, they have no branch name. "any%" is assumed for games that don't have a subtitle. Also, 2 player seems unnecessary as well.
I agree with this not having a branch name, but I think it's inconsistent throughout many runs on the site. Also, what about 2 player is unnecessary? Surely they'd have to be some way to differentiate between the two warpless runs, if both are accepted.
Edit: Not sure why you clarified by editing, but sure. So are you suggesting that we have a non-named branch, warpless, and 1p warpless? That seems fine.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(190)
Joined: 11/21/2010
Posts: 913
Location: Tennessee
"Warps" is a better branch name than any%. There should only be one warped run, but I still defend both warpless runs. Also feos, considering that you have improved your original submission a few times, I'll just wait for acceptance to encode.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(190)
Joined: 11/21/2010
Posts: 913
Location: Tennessee
adelikat wrote:
Very nice run, awesome.
And I agree with feos that this movie successfully obsoletes all previous movies. I vote for a triple obsoletion.
It's clear that this run beats everything pretty hard, but that doesn't mean it should be the only branch. I think there should be three branches: 2p warps, 2p warpless, 1p warpless. The only purpose of warps is to show the fastest possible time that can beat a game. Knowing the record of a 1p warped game is fairly useless, but both 1p and 2p should have warpless runs. I think the logic from SMB and the Warpless Walkathon applies here well.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(190)
Joined: 11/21/2010
Posts: 913
Location: Tennessee
SoulCal wrote:
Brandon wrote:
If you'd like to have your videos used as verifications on site, please start recording right before you turn on the console (Avoid talking please), and record until the credits finish running. If you have a tripod, this could help a lot. If you do this for all of the SM64 runs, obsolete and current, you will be my hero.
I was talking to show it was legit and show my design. I'll eventually get around to recording a good quality video, too. Any why would I verify obsolete SM64 TASes? That's rather unnecessary. Besides, I got the (relatively old) 120star run to sync just fine; I am 100% certain the other old TASes will also.
Don't get me wrong, the current runs take priority, and you should verify those first. If you have other games you could verify, do the current ones for those first as well. However, once that is done, you should also do the obsolete runs because it will increase the number of runs on the site that are verified. We currently have about 2% of the site validated. Imagine how nice it would look for the site if we could put on the front page "We have been able to play back 50% of our runs on the original consoles. Our technology owns hundreds of world records!"
Btw, my design is so strange and twisted, no one will ever be able to understand or reverse engineer what I did. If there is a free blog or something I can sign up for, I can put my code and design materials online for everyone to see. Just know if you want to try to verify things yourself, you'll need about $350 worth of software and hardware.
There are several, plus free Google Code / Github accounts.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(190)
Joined: 11/21/2010
Posts: 913
Location: Tennessee
SoulCal wrote:
Btw, Super Mario 64 TAS Console Verified. WTF? or FTW!
Link to video
If you'd like to have your videos used as verifications on site, please start recording right before you turn on the console (Avoid talking please), and record until the credits finish running. If you have a tripod, this could help a lot. If you do this for all of the SM64 runs, obsolete and current, you will be my hero.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(190)
Joined: 11/21/2010
Posts: 913
Location: Tennessee
Dacicus wrote:
Just don't blend those parts of the movie...
That's the non-lazy answer.
In all seriousness, I figure that there's way to tweak the algorithm from preventing these cases from happening. I should be more conscious of when / where I'm blending, but that doesn't mean the algorithm can't be better.
1 is image A, 0 is image B.
We take 66% of the first frame and 33% of the second (note the alignment above).
The result is that 66% of the resulting image is image A over all these frames.
Unfortunately, this is normal up to 50% probability.
Sadly, 2 of the 3 Bionic Commando encodes I did yesterday had this problem. Is there any workaround for this? Surely there's a way to catch these instances and prevent the issue from occurring.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(190)
Joined: 11/21/2010
Posts: 913
Location: Tennessee
See this video and watch at around 13:19. It takes a 2-on-2-off effect and blends it in the worst way possible: it's blurry AND the effect is removed. Is this normal?
