It is hilarious to me to see such a long line up of authors, see it's an SM64 TAS, and then see the "all trees" category. I did have to look at the calender twice, as it seems a very good joke. The joke is made more perfect by extensive author's notes, treating the whole business most seriously; that they reference one "Jeave" and his TASes, who does not actually exist, hightens the tension (the actual youtube channel is "Jeaze", btw). That the actual TAS presented here seems of high quality is important to the bit as well. I cannot but vote yes in confusion, because the one question remains, and that is why "all trees"?
I tried on my Windows 11 Ryzen 7 5700x3d machine on Dolphin 2412, freshly downloaded, and the rom with the same sha-1, to no succes. It also desynced in the shop after chapter 8, on the forging of a lance. When I unchecked the option 'Enable dualcore', it desynced at the same spot. It's my first time trying to run a tas-movie, so I'm not too sure on what I can try, but so far no good.
You get the roulette when you inhale two enemies that would both individually give an ability if swallowed. In room 3, the first ones to do that are that fire guy and the fourth enemy.
Nice to see more Arkanoid. Two things. Since your NES movie made use of a different peripheral, how does using the SNES mouse compare to the joypad for this title? And sometimes you let balls disappear, even when there's blocks enough that they seem useful. I don't know the full mechanics, but can you not return the coloured balls that appear when you hit certain enemies? (Like in round 97.)
Do you mean checking the dislikes on a site like this: https://www.dislikeviewer.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fyoutu.be%2F6Aoi8Iv53dE ? (239 dislikes vs 128 likes at the moment of writing.) Because obviously the actual youtube statistics that feos just gave are more trustworthy than the estimates of sites like this based on a non-youtube API, I wouldn't worry about it.
Crazy!!! No idea how to judge whether what was done is optimal at all, but it is so abundantly clear that it's a TAS going at it full throttle. Nice moments include the passenger that gets in saying 'you almost killed me!' and a sidetrip driving back and forth from the target area to do some ghost driving. The wall drifting feels a bit arbitrary to me, but crazy game, crazy tas in any case.
In this case, aren't the rules working exactly as intended? Since there's no gamplay difference, English is prefered so the text is readable to a wider audience.
I really don't quite get what's so bad about having seperate publications for fresh starts and save starts in fighting games (and racing games, and other games where the game is still played from a 'new game' state - but in an unlocked (hard) mode). I do get the concern of it needing to be clear, also in the obsoletion chain, of what the actual fastest completion is. I guess you would generally be mostly interested in the save start obsoletion chain (which could possibly include fresh starts as well).
The problem in my mind is more that if, for a certain game, the save start is really competitive, and then someone decides to make a fresh start TAS that is, from an optimization standpoint, already obsolete. I would hope that such TASes, and taking the problem a bit broader, those TASes that are aimed more at getting a publication than showcasing the best of TAS, just don't get made, but probably that will not be the case. I can imagine the rules should give leeway for rejections in such cases, even if there is no previously published movie in that specific branch.
Is any of these runs remotely interesting? Is this what the site is trying to achieve with the bizarre SRAM rulesets? Nobody has ever made any category for this in an actual speedrun of the whole MK series, so i have to guess the answer is no. I'm waiting for the rules to be set to decide if i submit these or not.
I don't get why you would make these runs and want to get them published if you do not think them remotely interesting? Who or what is forcing people to make every publishable run imaginable?
Personally I don't like watching these fighting games, but I do think it's an interesting principle to see how fast one can beat a game out of the box from power on.
Fun movie, and the (mostly) static parts are easily skipped, so they didn't bother me much. It's always nice to have such detailed submission notes as well.
I think that in priciple Glitchless fits very well in standard, where we already have fastest completion and no major skips. In fact, no major skips seems weirder to me to include in standard than glitchless. I don't think there were great difficulties with defining no major skips, even tho that also requires some sense of intended gameplay, and what constitutes a glitch.
Practically, I think starting with rough guidelines and then refining them as needed as we go through game by game would be best.
drawing 14 contains an error. Between the T'rex's legs the background is the same color above and below the horizon.
This is addressed in the submission notes, by the way:
warmCabin wrote:
T-Rex (Drawing 14)
Another fake-out horizon line.
See also:
warmCabin wrote:
Pterodactyl (Drawing 7)
Even though there's a horizon line here, it doesn't go all the way to the right. The background is one region if you fill it.
It's a bit confusing since Drawing 7 does have a small bit of background above the horizon line (between the tail and the wing) that is gray instead of blue, but in Drawing 14 the bit between the legs gets coloured with the rest of the background. So it's impossible to have the bit between the legs be a different colour.
I have a bag of tiles. The tiles can be either blue or yellow, but you do not know how many are blue and how many are yellow. You draw 12 tiles without replacement: 4 blue and 8 yellow.
Is the next tile you draw more likely to be blue or yellow?
Does the answer depend on the number of tiles originally in the bag?
What is the chance that the next tile you draw is blue?
I feel like my answer is way too simple, so I'm very interested in what else it could be. My idea is that you know nothing about the tiles other than they're either blue or yellow, and that you drew twice more yellows than blues. Therefore, you'd think the next tile drawn is more likely to be yellow, independent of how many tiles are in the bag, with the chance of drawing blue next being 4/12.
I think this game neither rewards you for doing something right, nor punishes you for doing something wrong. It therefore, as Feos said, does not require you to do anything at all, let alone accomplish something. I also think this game, because it does not acknowledge success or failure, does not really have an end point. It's impossible to speedrun a sandbox; you can only speedrun a game you made up yourself in it, such as the 4-colour a dinosaur submission does.
I think it would be extremely silly to publish it as a seperate branch just because of a version specific glitch. The visible gameplay difference between the ACE-TASes is not really significant; the significant part, from normal code execution to arbitrary, is completely invisible. Furthermore, I don't see a slower PAL run in a different category getting its own branch, so why would this one?
It's not slower, it's faster than NTSC by 30 seconds.
I clarified what I meant, didn't realise I worded that totally wrong.
I think it would be extremely silly to publish it as a seperate branch just because of a version specific glitch. The visible gameplay difference between the ACE-TASes is not really significant; the significant part, from normal code execution to arbitrary, is completely invisible. Furthermore, I don't see why in a different category a slower PAL run would get its own branch, so why would an NTSC one here?
Expanding on what Mizumaririn said, standard coordinates for monitors have the 0,0 in the top left corner, corresponding to a normal x and inverted y compared to a normal cartesian graph. Emulators follow the standard monitor logic. Why the top left corner was chosen, and not the bottom one, probably because now it follows the normal reading order?
I'd think those options would fall under the difficulty-choice rule, no? I don't know how that one is phrased, and now I can't even find it at all in the movie rules, but I think the general idea was that normal difficulty is always acceptable, harder difficulty if it is more interesting, and easier difficulty not really at all, but I'm not sure on the last part and that's the relevant bit here.
Movie publications by system still talks about Moons (also in the urls), on this page https://tasvideos.org/Movies. It looks good elsewhere I looked tho.
I liked the video, it's a good Tool-Assisted Showcase. It would be cool to have it somewhere suitable on the site. It's not really a good fit for the site as currently setup of course, even under the current more relaxed rules of the Playground linked above, as even those require the run to be reproducible by anyone. (Is there more required than an N64, the ROM, a TASbot, an input file, and the Triforce% github resources?) I think that means that the Showcase category should have a bit more relaxed stance about the verifyability of a run, and that's fine. Maybe even collect runs that you want to have in it, and then figure out what the rules tieing them together actually are.
Another fake-out horizon line.
Even though there's a horizon line here, it doesn't go all the way to the right. The background is one region if you fill it.
