Why would you want to deliberately introduce defects into the video that were originally caused by limited display hardware? (Other than, maybe, nostalgia.)
I do understand that the graphics of a few games were actually designed with the NTSC artifacts in mind (I believe Castlevania 2 is an example), but still...
Kind of like saying 'Why deliberately emulate lag that was caused by the limited processing power of the original console, and not the intentions of the developers?'
There are 100% runs for real time in this game,but they don't use the most broken shortcuts possible,it would be really cool to see the broken-ness of the any% with the whole game completed.Also,you would use many different strats in the game.
The category sylux98/bertin does is basically '100% no out of bounds', so he denies himself using any of the broken shortcuts to have more gameplay to play.
There's also 100%, any% and any% no out of bounds.
Seems like it didn't freeze, just softlock. Low ACE potential.
EDIT: That said, LA is so horribly broken that there's surely something you can do somewhere. Have you ever gotten the game to outright crash (music stops playing, screen stops updating, etc. or game reboots)?
was hoping for some ACE when i saw masterjun,yes vote
This isn't ACE. In fact, if it was ACE, since Hourglass doesn't run its program in a virtual machine but on the same level of privilege as anything else on the system, it would be the first TAS that was also a Windows virus!!
I know, but I thought Masterjun just redid the parts where improvements were found and hex edited the whole thing. But maybe I'm just wrong ?
It's short enough that you could just redo the whole thing.
You also get a smaller time bonus for being too slow in delivering a customer, as can be seen in this TAS. So competition should definitely remain time-based.
Nice run‚ yes vote. Shouldn't Scepheo be co-author though‚ since he did the current publication?
That's not how co-authorship works. If Masterjun did the entire input for this TAS from start to finish, Masterjun is the only author. (You can also nominate co-authors for just helping out enough in the making of the TAS, but that wasn't the case and is optional anyway.)
The main reason why there aren't so many playarounds is because they're labours of love - you need to know damn everything about a game back and front to make a great playaround. It doesn't have an easy goal like minimize time that anyone can incrementially approach - you need to know everything you want to do already.
Case study - Super Mario World. A Super Mario Playaround TAS would be the best thing EVER. It has so many amazing glitches with no speedrun applicability that really screw up the game. But with how much effort and knowledge is required - that means only the most experienced SMW glitchers+TASers could do it, and it would take a very long time for them to be satisfied.
Even CEN64 won't emulate crooked cartridge.
It short circuits the abstractions that let us reason about how an N64 works on a higher level than transistors and electronics.
If it were actually possible to TAS with it, only then would it be worth debating as to whether it would be allowed or not.
Well, "boss skip glitch" has the advantage of being clear and objectively definable.
I'm not sure. dwangoAC and I made a test run at the end of NetHack (using the game's debug mode to set us up in the state we'll be in). Instead of a final boss, NetHack has a final level, with three bosses; there is no reason to kill any of the bosses except to prevent them harassing you, although people normally do. We use a teleport-within-a-level glitch to skip from the start of that level to the end, and so never meet the bosses, but you aren't 100% guaranteed to meet any of them in a normal playthrough (it's possible to slip past via just running round them, and this is an extreme version of that). Is this skipping the final boss or not?
If the general class is 'uses a glitch to skip a final boss that is skippable by intended mechanics as well', I think such games shouldn't count for a 'final boss skip glitch' tag.
For the non assembly programmers out there: What's the explanation (discriminator) for this glitch not being ACE, despite looking identical to the ACE usage?
