Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2081)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1017
Location: US
fsvgm777 wrote:
I wonder why you went for the tape release (with the slowest loading, no really, about half the duration of the TAS is seizure-inducing loading as it is) instead of a disk release. I assume it's because you didn't want to deal with a cracked disk image, even though there's an exception for them in the rules (for C64 games and I presume also ZX Spectrum games).
EDIT: So....I apparently found an *un*cracked disk release.
SHA1: F51B6D934EED206DF74D248F9F70C16C96146133
I couldn't find evidence of an official disk release. Further all the disk versions I could find had a glitched room with walls/floors that weren't supposed to be there.
EDIT: Specifically this room.
Correct
Glitched
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2081)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1017
Location: US
At the risk of offering a 'too simplistic' suggestion:
Would it be possible/acceptable to simply add a page to the wiki (or a new tab on the Movie Page) that houses/publishes high quality videos of event content; even if that content doesn't go through the normal submission/judging/publication process?
This content could be kept separate from the standard obsoletion chains, while still having a presence on the site as 'official' TASvideos content. The necessary input files could still be hosted/linked for future reference, and the videos could be sorted by year/event instead of by system/tier/title.
As with our current publications, the videos could showcase just the TAS content, not a replay of the event VODs. Essentially making it a page for here's what we presented at X event in it's raw form.
This would satisfy the desire of the content creators to have their work published as part of our site instead of somewhere completely separate.
If this page was strictly limited to content actually shown at an event, we wouldn't have to worry about arbitrary stuff being submitted for that page.
Having this page would also do nothing to damage the current position of the site in regards to standard submissions/publications. Everything else could function as it currently is. If we wanted, we could even put notes with the videos on this page linking to any site content of the same games that have gone through the standard process.
The three biggest challenges I see with this suggestion are:
1) Having to describe the playback method/emulator/tools used, if not already standard on the site.
2) Actually creating the high quality videos (I'm assuming some of the input playback methods may not have video dumping capability)
3) It would likely require completely manual curation and not have anything automated.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2081)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1017
Location: US
Lobsterzelda wrote:
This is probably one of the earliest examples of rubberbanding in video games. However, instead of using increased/more dangerous hazards like Mario Kart does, Pitfall! uses the global timer cycle for all hazards to smooth things out.
I can only assume you're considering the global timer's affect on speed of play as the rubber banding effect.
While it could be perceived as a limiting factor for more skilled players, I strongly doubt that difficulty/skill balancing had anything to do with the creators' choice to use the global cycle for all the obstacles. It's much more likely that it was easier/more efficient to program obstacles on a global timer instead of having individual timers for every single room.
Using this global timing mechanism to support a claim for rubber banding in Pitfall! because it limits when certain actions can happen would be similar to claiming that frame rules in SMB are a form of rubber banding because they limit when certain events can take place.
Generally, rubber banding in video games refers to changes in degree of difficulty based on the player's in-game performance. In other words, on-the-fly easing of difficulty for less skilled players or on-the-fly increase of difficulty for more skilled players.
A game mechanic (such as a global timer) that is static and unchanging isn't difficulty balancing (rubber banding) just because it inherently limits the extent to which a skilled player can outperform a non-skilled player; it's simply a limiting factor for all players.
The global timer in Pitfall! doesn't force faster players to slow down so slower players can catch up any more than it allows slower players to speed up to catch up with the faster players. All players move at the same speed and have the same obstacles to deal with all on the same global timer. In my opinion there's no dynamic change in difficulty in this game to warrant a claim of rubber banding.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2081)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1017
Location: US
Skim through here.
Also, welcome to the site. Don't submit a SMB TAS unless it beats the current record, or you'll get a bunch of flack from other members about movie rules and guidelines.
Side Note to the site admin: This should be merged with the current thread.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2081)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1017
Location: US
Memory wrote:
Do you want to try to find additional improvements, or would you like to use the updated file for the improvement and add me as coauthor? I will drop my claim over the submission if the latter.
I'm a bit surprised you were able to find improvements, so I'm good with you being co-author. Collaboration is one of the aspects of this community I enjoy most.
I am curious if it's something I missed in both versions or if it's something that was only improvable in the NTSC mode.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2081)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1017
Location: US
Memory wrote:
Is there any particular reason Player 2 is used instead of Player 1?
EDIT: Improvement by 14 frames, mostly by not slowing down as much and using a better jump pattern on stage 10: User movie #56061314166218832
Many games on C64 default to using Joyport 2. It's a game specific thing. Often a game's manual will tell which port to use. Other times, it's trial and error.
Sadly, sometimes even the wrong port will have some effect making things even more confusing at times.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2081)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1017
Location: US
Warp wrote:
On the other hand, is unplugging and plugging the controller gameplay input to the game? I imagine some particular game (Metal Gear franchise?) might use that as a breaking-the-fourth-wall gimmick at some point, but in general not.
Even if it is a breaking the 4th wall gimmick, it's way the game is intended to be played.
Specifically for MGS, the Psychomantis fight CAN be beaten without doing this swap (which means it's not necessary for a TAS). But to me, the fact that it is the intended way of playing means it should be acceptable.
To ban this would be to ban a developer intended method of play (at least for that particular game). So it may be something that needs accepted/rejected on a game-by-game basis.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2081)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1017
Location: US
slamo wrote:
Ok, I replaced the movie file (and fixed the rerecord count to match the original).
The most accurate rerecord count would probably be the PAL count plus the NTSC count.
We made the PAL version first then those inputs were copied and pasted into a blank NTSC run. So the rerecords of the NTSC .bk2 file is the additional edits/rerecords necessary to resync everything for the NTSC region.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2081)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1017
Location: US
No objections here. I think accepting NTSC runs even for C64 games that weren't released in NTSC regions should be acceptable as most of the actual C64 software would work on systems of either region anyway.
Just because the game wasn't made/sold in an NTSC region doesn't mean that it wasn't played on NTSC machines.
I'm currently putting ideas together for a guide to set up and TAS C64 games, so I'll make sure to include this clarification in that guide as well.
EDIT: I do support maintaining original release format images though.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2081)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1017
Location: US
electricslide wrote:
I'd prefer:
"Speed/entertainment tradeoffs"
"Hits every duck"
If I felt this run had any chance at Moon tier, I would have done that.
But frankly, I don't believe this game has enough inherent entertainment value worthy of moon tier from a TAS perspective. This submission was always intended as a vault attempt; and for that reason, the speed takes priority in my opinion.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2081)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1017
Location: US
nymx wrote:
Dang DrD2k9...shooting those ducks in the grass doesn't seem to be fair. Did you ever consider the little ducklings that were left behind after you killed the parents?
With that many ducks in one area....their population needs culling.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2081)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1017
Location: US
The final input of this submission is the last input needed to beat the game. The extra input mentioned is simply required to transition from the 'Success' screen to the 'the end' screen which then loops back into level 1.
Here's a .bk2 with the needed extra input to loop.
For TAS timing; what is submitted is appropriate, in my opinion.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2081)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1017
Location: US
mklip2001 wrote:
I didn't know Punch was quite so violent!
In many variations of Punch & Judy performances, Punch beats up/kills multiple other characters with his stick; including even the devil himself in some of those story lines.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2081)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1017
Location: US
As the submission notes were already quite long, we felt it was better to include the following information in a forum post instead of in the submission notes.
Media Format
While there are disk images of this game available, we could not find reference to an official release on disk medium. We have therefore chosen to TAS this game using a tape image even though it results in a longer loading time.
Region (PAL vs NTSC)
For what it's worth, many C64 games released in one region work perfectly well in the other region with no glitches or impact to gameplay. This includes real media, not just emulation; while there were differences in the NTSC/PAL hardware, media from one region could be used on a system from the other region. The only times games tend to have issues being run on an out-of-region system is if the game is specially coded to deal with a particular region's frame rate.
Pyjamarama runs equally well using either PAL or NTSC sync settings with no obvious glitches resulting from being played in one setting over the other. As NTSC runs at a bit higher framerate than PAL, the game can be completed faster in NTSC mode. Other than gameplay speed, the only other notable difference is the pitch of various sound effects being slightly higher pitch in NTSC mode.
While we were able to find one reference to a North American release of this game, we have (as yet) been unable to confirm this elsewhere; therefore the submitted file uses PAL sync settings. If the judge/staff feel this one reference is enough to warrant the game being run in NTSC mode for publication purposes, we have also created a .bk2 using NTSC sync settings which is available in userfiles. The gameplay portion of the NTSC run is appoximately 6:31 (roughly 10 seconds faster) and the submitted PAL version is approximately 6:41. Total time comparison is roughly 11:06 for PAL and 10:45 for NTSC.
Here is a comparison video of the run in both regions. NTSC is on the left; PAL is on the right.
Link to video
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2081)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1017
Location: US
nymx wrote:
I can see that the "runs" don't stop. :) Well, DrD2K9...did you finally find the toilet in this game?
As the myth goes...
Only after building several maze-like pyramids, hiding away his riches in the dark corners of said pyramids, and purchasing a menagerie of (nearly) immortal beasts to protect said treasure; did Montezuma unfortunately realize that he forgot to include plans in these pyramids for daily necessities (such as restrooms)--which is quite unfortunate as he subsequently died of dysentery before a retrofit was possible. The E.Coli from said dysentery is rumored to have polluted the entire water supply of present day Mexico; dooming all who drink (while failing to first purify said water) to a shared portion of Montezuma's gastrointestinal distress. This has colloquially become known as Montezuma's Revenge.
EDIT: I put way too much time and effort into writing that.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2081)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1017
Location: US
Pokota wrote:
Question.
Why do we care? We neither have nor claim to have exclusivity over tool-assisted superplays. To my knowledge, SDA neither has nor claims to have exclusivity over high-quality archives of live-play superplays.
To be fair, this forum topic was started essentially as an advertisement for SDA; basically trying to make people (who don't already know that it does) aware that SDA exists. Svimmer wrote:
...I'm obviously really just writing this here for all the new folks that may not actually have been exposed to SDA as a concept.
From there, the topic seems to have morphed a bit.
Frankly, both sites have unique value and independent audiences (even if there is some overlap from some users frequenting both sites). For that reason, I personally don't see a purpose in bickering about which site is better/worse.
Think about it this way:
Having two independent RTA speedrun sites in existence, is no different than it would be if another TAS site popped up independently from TASvideos.org
Some people would prefer our site, others would prefer the other. Some people would frequently visit both.
There's nothing that suggests that these two independent sites should be forced to collaborate/agree on site regulations. Nor is there anything suggesting users on the first site should be held to the regulations of the second site.
Each site's rules and regulations are unique to that site and don't cross over to the other, even if there are similarities in those regulations.
IF one or both of these sites were trying to claim exclusivity, then I could see some grounds for debate. BUT, to my knowledge, speedrun.com (being the newer site) was not created in attempt to obsolete SDA (being the older site).
Also, to my knowledge, neither speedrun.com nor SDA has claimed exclusivity on being THE archive for RTA speedruns; they are each simply AN archive of RTA speedruns, independent of the other.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2081)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1017
Location: US
As I mentioned in the discussion on the Coleco version: 100% routing would be an insane challenge to optimize, require significant backtracking, and be much, much longer of a run.
Personally, I don't think it would be any more entertaining than the now published Coleco run. Frankly, I think a 100% run would be less entertaining due to the significantly extended time/backtracking.
I do feel it would be vault eligible though.Side note: There are currently no RTA runs of this game listed on either speedrun.com or speeddemosarchive.com.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2081)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1017
Location: US
That's an ambitious plan. Hopefully it will work out and yield a truly optimal run.
I'd recommend cancelling this submission in the meantime and creating a new submission when you're ready to present the new TAS.
Correct
Glitched