I don't think this TAS is even comparable to the old Total Control TAS, given that this just takes control of the screen and displays funny things synched up to the music. It's funny, but nowhere near as impressive as reprogramming the game to make it do something completely different.
Voted no.
Personally, I would think blazing through the impossible to perfect levels like in the any% TAS would be more jarring than skipping them outright, as is done here. Collecting all rings regardless of whether the bonus is obtainable might be nice, but it might seem weird to someone who's just watching the TAS at random -- "why does he get perfect on this level but not that one?" for instance.
DarkKobold wrote:
And finally, another non-related whine, it is absolutely foolish and asinine to complain about people making small # of frame improvements. We never dictate what runs our users work on - it is their free time, and it would be "ruling with an iron fist" to tell them they can or can't work on a run. Additionally, it would be foolish for us to reject a submitted run because the number of frames improved is too small. We want the best runs here. Also, yeah, people get excited when SMB gets improved by 1 frame, and there are magically 20 pages. Once again, that is our user base posting of their own free will, not us telling them to post. The Truth, brought to you by DarkKobold.
I'll be honest, I agree with you on this point. Seeing improvements -- even the tiniest ones -- to existing runs does entertain me (provided I liked the original run in the first place, of course. I'm not gonna be watching improvements to any Final Fantasy TASes any time soon =p). I was just as happy as probably the rest of the 20 page group upon seeing SMB1 actually improved by anything whatsoever.
Having said this, I do not control the minds of everyone else in the other, previously mentioned forum. Everyone else has their own opinions, and some others might not find a single frame improvement to really be noteworthy. This is perfectly fine, no?
You haven't corrected the post where you called me Xkeeper either. <3
And yes, I realized the forum munched them up when they suddenly reappeared after my post.
Bisqwit was much, much more lax with what he'd allow and how much he'd bend the rules. Additionally, there have been submissions that have shown that exceptions made for one submission don't generally carry over to any future improved submissions, yes?
That was before I checked the history of the Zanac runs on this site.
However, you can't say it doesn't seem the slightest bit odd that a video by the site owner (continues to) get by scot-free while this one gets slaughtered, hm?
Also, nice that you admitted to actually reading the 'circlejerk forum' you talked of. <3
I wasn't the one who judged Zanac, take it up with whoever did.
Fully aware of this, that's why I said "you guys" and not "you". =p
A bit of consistency between judges would be nice when it comes to things like this. It seems especially odd to see a movie rejected with one of the first reasons given being "uses a level select", despite a movie doing something eerily similar being published just days before.
Nach wrote:
If I ignored the comments, I would have accepted this. Since I did not ignore the comments, and noticed how many people did not like the goal, and how many people actually noticed sloppy play, I rejected it.
Well, how many is "too many", in your case? Personally, I didn't notice enough of people complaining about them for it to matter; and the movie still ended up with a 70%+ approval rating nevertheless.
(Also, random note: 4 posts to "Newbie" status, apparently.)
You know, I was just going to ignore this topic upon seeing it rejected, but after seeing Nach's comments and reading them a bunch of times, I can't help but call him out on stuff.
Nach wrote:
It uses a cheat code. It arbitrarily avoids some items and wastes time. It doesn't complete the whole game.
And yet the Zanac TAS, published all of four days ago, can get away with things like this just fine? Not that I'm saying you guys should go back and magically unpublish every Zanac TAS, save the first one (I realize this is impossible anyway); I'm more or less pointing out how you guys published a TAS that does nearly the exact same thing while shooting this one down. Where's the sense here?
Nach wrote:
TASs are supposed to look practically perfect. When many people actually notice a flaw in the play, the perfect image is shattered, those sections need to be redone.
Okay, I can understand "superhuman". But "practically perfect", now? When did you guys switch to requiring near perfection for every little thing? That's an absurdly high barrier for a newcomer to overcome, and it honestly makes me wonder why you have "technical" ratings for published movies, in that case.
(Also, if TASes are supposed to be 'practically perfect', why are any playarounds ever accepted, then?)
Nach wrote:
A TAS which aims to collect all rings should go through the game and beat it collecting all rings. The other objectives don't really work in this game.
I'm just going to assume you missed all the times this was pointed out in this topic, but a max rings goal will not work. You have to draw some kind of arbitrary line when it comes to renewable ring sources. Do you spam slots for nine minutes and murder the TAS's entertainment value? Do you stop once the ring counter starts displaying gibberish instead of numbers? Do you completely ignore them? (That isn't really "max rings" then, is it?)
Aiming for a bonus like this TAS does is a much, much better idea, as you no longer have to worry about what to do in acts like Casino Night, or in cases where monitors respawn (there's at least one, I think?).
On a finishing note... given how rarely comments and votes seem to come into play (and how often they are ignored), I have to question why they even exist.
Honestly, the goal choice here seems perfect. "Max rings" brings up a whole slew of problems due to renewable sources of rings in zones like Casino Night. And skipping acts is a perfectly okay choice to make, given how those four acts are not going to help fulfill his goal at all. It also helps keep the run's entertainment value high, constantly tearing open act after act left and right without taking even the tiniest of breaks. (Unless you call the boss battles and tally screens 'breaks'. =p)
And with regards to the occasional imperfections? I could barely notice anything whatsoever. There may be a few things here and there, but to the untrained eye that isn't going through everything with a fine toothed comb, this does indeed look superhuman. Adventuring through every act for every little gold collectible at breakneck speeds isn't something you see often, if at all.
TASes like this should be judged on entertainment value first and foremost. And, to be honest? I personally think this is one of the most entertaining TASes submitted to this site recently. I've re-watched it at least four times at this point, and I love every second of it. <3
Xkeeper's posts were, in standard Xkeeper form, berating, belittling, and disrespectful to the effort that had been donated. He had the simple option of not using this emulator, or ignoring it. Instead, he sought to attack those who had put effort in.
Um, the entire reason any of this started was because adelikat had the gall to call an unfinished, problematic emulator "the preferred NES/etc. emulator". Had he not done that, it's incredibly likely that he'd have just passed it off as 'another work in progress emulator'.
DarkKobold wrote:
And, when suggestions are made (that don't require a complete reprogramming of the site) we do our best to accommodate.
And yet, it took how long to get rid of the scam-like casino link on the front page that got added?
And why is the featured submission's description still being hidden behind a "Read More..." link, despite having well more than enough room to fit the entire description there for 99% of movies? For that matter, why was it even made to use a different format from regular published movie pages, anyway?
And on that note, why is there still no added text to differentiate multiple encodes on a single publication? Would it seriously require a rewrite to add something minor to tell them apart?
DarkKobold wrote:
adelikat told me personally he regrets deleting those posts. However, I ask all of you to reflect how you would feel if someone came and took a giant shit on your hard work, a gift to the TAS community?
Quite frankly, given how they've backtracked now (no database seems to be required in Bizhawk, last I checked, as it runs hacks just fine - maybe I'm just doing something right/wrong?; and it's no longer referred to as the "preferred emulator"), I think he did a good job knocking them off of their high horse that was wearing two pairs of stilts. They needed the reality check.
Also, nothing's going to change the fact that he did delete them. Regret or no regret, he still did it.
One last thing:
DarkKobold wrote:
Xkeeper is of the concept that if anyone does things in a way he disagrees with, then the proper course of action is to berate them.
If this were actually true, I'd be getting berated constantly by him. I do things quite differently from how he does. And yet, for some magically unknown reason, we happen to get along just fine.
He berates those he finds to be doing idiotic things. An emulator that, at the time, had a "database" required for loading ROMs, and that was called the "preferred" emulator at the time despite it clearly needing work? That seems sufficiently idiotic to me.
(And no, I am not a shill. I am not posting to defend him because he asked me, or any other reason you might think of. I'm posting this out of my own free will. Nor am I some random person that knows nothing about this site whatsoever; I've looked around this site back when the url was still bisqwit.iki.fi/nesvideos/. It just so happens that I never cared about posting anything until I saw this crap going on.)