Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Experienced player
(626)
Joined: 4/5/2014
Posts: 459
STBM wrote:
Thanks ! It works very well ! (finally got an encode with good video and audio !)
I do have a problem though, Dolphin crashes everytime it tries to create "framedump1" (so every 2gb I guess), I'm using lagarith codec since I don't really know any other. Any idea why ?
(I can still create video encode using the non-a/v hack version and then audio with this one, I just want to try to get everything in the same Dolphin)
Yeah, there is a known issue with Dolphin and dumps. I would suggest using Pipedec in that case.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Experienced player
(626)
Joined: 4/5/2014
Posts: 459
synnchan wrote:
Fog wrote:
How is it ignorant? They're a small team with a finite amount of time and resources.
You could have added this information on your first post as well then, as natt did.
Either way, my point is still valid.
I'm not going to get into this any more as this is a discussion about development, not a thread for nitpicking arguments.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Experienced player
(626)
Joined: 4/5/2014
Posts: 459
synnchan wrote:
I am curious about one thing.
If I remember correctly, the purpose of the site is to be a collection of tool-assisted speedruns of as many games as possible while also being entertaining.
Then how is it not a priority to make it possible to do runs for yet another game system?
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Experienced player
(626)
Joined: 4/5/2014
Posts: 459
Glitcher wrote:
Fog wrote:
But it doesn't actually beat the game.
The whole point of a standard TAS is to reach the credits of a game. Since this run does it in two minutes, I'd say it counts.
And man, obsoleting one of the most TASed games on this site by ten minutes? Hell, yeah! It seems memory corruption glitches are becoming more frequent around here.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Experienced player
(626)
Joined: 4/5/2014
Posts: 459
Bisqwit wrote:
Oh, by the way, after reading the submission text, I notice that this movie actually belongs to the category "executes arbitrary code", since it involves jumping into RAM section that contains user-manipulable bytes.
It is not just calling a "game-end" object into existence.
ACE (Arbitrary Code Execution) only gets applied to runs that don't jump to the end credits. Otherwise, we consider it a "game end glitch"
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Experienced player
(626)
Joined: 4/5/2014
Posts: 459
But it doesn't actually beat the game. It just runs the credits during the Ice World stage. It even states that it doesn't actually say the game is complete in the notes.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Experienced player
(626)
Joined: 4/5/2014
Posts: 459
feos wrote:
Fog wrote:
It should be noted as such in the branch name then, because it opens it up for obsoletion if it's not.
You want all our runs that don't use "large skips" to be labeled "no large skips"?
Most games don't have any of those "large skips", we do obviously have some exceptions like OoT and Super Metroid. In these cases I'd like there to be some more clear names in the branches so we don't have these endless discussions of obsoletion because the branches would be clear and concise.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Experienced player
(626)
Joined: 4/5/2014
Posts: 459
ais523 wrote:
I'd say that the current in-game time run is not a "large skips" run by my definition, and that the new run is, and thus no obsoletion would be appropriate. (I need to get around to a formal definition of "large skips" sometime; it's a method of categorizing glitches by how much of the game they can skip, as opposed to what methods are used, and thus is a little more objective. For Super Metroid, it covers any method of entering Tourian except via killing all four bosses to activate the statue cutscene, and any method of winning the game that is does not involve entering Tourian and then defeating Mother Brain.)
It should be noted as such in the branch name then, because it opens it up for obsoletion if it's not.
Added [Tier: Moons]SNES Super Metroid (JPN/USA) "ingame time" by Saturn in 39:15.3 (2011-10-30)
- obsoletes [Tier: Moons]SNES Super Metroid (JPN/USA) "no X-Ray glitch, ingame time" by Cpadolf in 41:02.4 (2008-03-02)
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Experienced player
(626)
Joined: 4/5/2014
Posts: 459
feos wrote:
Scepheo wrote:
feos wrote:
Can you explain why do you completely ignore the main reason it was published - community support (which is why we publish new branches)?
As far as I understand this thread:
People against obsoletion:
- feos
People pro obsoletion:
- Nach
- Fog
(- me)
As it stands, the community is for obsoletion. If anybody's ignoring community support, it's you.
You must be kidding me. Community is all the people who voted for publishing the current ingame time run. Go count the votes. Community is all the people who didn't even think the latest submission should obsolete the in-game run. Community is all the people who didn't even think of the X-Ray run obsoleting the in-game one. Also, didn't you completely miscount those who want the in-game run to be not obsoleted?
How can we judge the community's support when they're not actively talking about this particular issue? All the discussion regarding in-game time obsoletion for this submission was split into here because it was seen as "off-topic", although I feel otherwise about that.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Experienced player
(626)
Joined: 4/5/2014
Posts: 459
feos wrote:
Fog wrote:
http://tasvideos.org/3316S.html[/url]
The branch name is "any%, ingame" in the submission, and "ingame time" in the publication.
Nowhere in the branch name does it explicitly state that it's a non-game breaking branch. Perhaps if it was named "in game, no x-ray" like the previous submissions that it obsoleted, there would be more plausibility with it.
Branches don't need to list everything they avoid compared to existing possibilities. It's based on statistics: if some trick type is rarely used, it's use is labeled in the branch, and when it's not used, it's the default, common condition that doesn't need a label. See http://tasvideos.org/JudgeGuidelines.html#Branches
Then why did the IGT run obsolete the ingame, no x-ray run and not keep the branch name? Surely it should have kept the no x-ray part of the name.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Experienced player
(626)
Joined: 4/5/2014
Posts: 459
Wyatt wrote:
Well, it clearly should obsolete 1978. X-ray glitch done better, and all.
I withhold judgement on 2558: While the time improvement is undeniable, it's FAR less entertaining, and doesn't honestly strike me as comparable.
It manipulates RAM to trigger the ending sequence. If that isn't comparable, I don't know what is.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Experienced player
(626)
Joined: 4/5/2014
Posts: 459
hero of the day wrote:
Well you are correct that it does not specify no-glitch in the title. Though I think the reason for this is that the any% category predated the glitched run. Since it came first, it wouldn't necessarily make sense to retroactively modify it's description, but rather to make a note in the title of the newer glitched run. In fact 99% of the runs on the site do not need to explicitly state "no-glitch" in their title, because it is understood that most runs are just normal runs and do not use massive glitch abuse.
We could link the previous publication in the description stating that it's a no glitch IGT run, and it would be just the same.
We can't simply think of hypothetical reasons as to why it was only named any%. Sure it was before the glitched runs, but it's labeled any% for a reason. Super Metroid is such an outlier in terms of what kind of runs there are, we have clear and distinct branch titles that describe in a few words what kind of run it is.
We could either rename this particular branch to "ingame, no x-ray", or obsolete that particular run with the x-ray run previous to this current submission.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Experienced player
(626)
Joined: 4/5/2014
Posts: 459
hero of the day wrote:
But it is a totally different category. The in-game run does not use any game breaking glitches at all. It also does not artificially lower the in-game timer. How can this particular submission be compared to it? If you wanna just remove the in-game run, that is a different discussion. This submission however should not be the reason for it's removal.
http://tasvideos.org/3316S.html
The branch name is "any%, ingame" in the submission, and "ingame time" in the publication.
Nowhere in the branch name does it explicitly state that it's a non-game breaking branch. Perhaps if it was named "in game, no x-ray" like the previous submissions that it obsoleted, there would be more plausibility with it.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Experienced player
(626)
Joined: 4/5/2014
Posts: 459
hero of the day wrote:
It always amazes me how complicated people have to make these obsoletion discussions. The submission sums up exactly how this run should be published, which coincidentally is how the majority of people feel too. Heck the author is basically laying out a perfect blueprint to obsolete 2 of his OWN runs. Why discuss further? Just publish this run and have it replace the 2 other glitch category runs. Leave all the other runs alone. This should be making people happy, since it lowers the amount of super metroid runs. It should not be an excuse to arbitrarily start removing the other non-glitch runs. I was originally against publishing the any% in-game run, but since it is here now, it would not be right to simply remove it because you feel there are too many super metroid runs. Ideally a new any% run will eventually be submitted which will also serve as a dual obsoletion for both the realtime and in-game time any% runs.
It's a valid discussion point if this run can possibly obsolete runs that aren't initially listed as goals in the description.
Also it's not arbitrarily obsoleting runs, like I posted earlier there are enough reasons that this could possibly obsolete the IGT run.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Experienced player
(626)
Joined: 4/5/2014
Posts: 459
adelikat wrote:
While I agree that the validity of the IGT branch is worth debating, isn't it a bit off topic in the context of this submission? The only plausible solution is a retroactive obsoletion by an existing movie, as it has no real intersect with this movie and shoudl be discussed in a another forum thread. (Unless I'm missing something).
The IGT for this submission is only 6 minutes (00:06). If there was a retroactive obsoletion to take place, it would be the current x-ray run obsoleting the IGT run.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Experienced player
(626)
Joined: 4/5/2014
Posts: 459
feos wrote:
Fog wrote:
- Obtains the fastest in-game time (despite not being an initial goal)
Probably.
Fog wrote:
- Does not manipulate the timer in any shape
It uses a game-breaking glitch that the ingame run deliberately avoids.
Fog wrote:
- Is entertaining
It's not more entertaining than the ingame run itself. If you say "no one just tried to compare", it's why they can't obsolete one another - they don't feel comparable.
The current IGT run is also many years old. New tricks have been found since then (like ACE, 0hp pausing) that should have made that run obsolete a long time ago.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Experienced player
(626)
Joined: 4/5/2014
Posts: 459
Eszik wrote:
Fog wrote:
Eszik wrote:
I think the ACE run should obsolete the 100% run since it gets even more than 100% collection rate and end the game fastern, and because we have too many branches for Super Metroid.
Uses RAM manipulation to achieve it. Not even in the same ballpark of what I'm talking about.
This run uses RAM manipulation to get a better IGT than the current IGT run.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Experienced player
(626)
Joined: 4/5/2014
Posts: 459
feos wrote:
Fog wrote:
How is it arbitrary? There are perfectly valid reasons to obsolete the x-ray glitch, game end glitch, and in game timer runs.
Can you list all the reasons to obsolete the ingame run again please? Community support should be among them (because it was the reason that branch was restored).
- Obtains the fastest in-game time (despite not being an initial goal)
- Does not manipulate the timer in any shape
- Is entertaining
Is this supposed to happen?
