I am very pleased by this outcome!
I found the movie very entertaining.
I would much prefer we stick to TAS input-length timing for Vault things. It's nice if we have a consistent standard, rather than judging different movies differently because of what their RTA communities do.
A warb degombs the brangy. Your gitch zanks and leils the warb.
Just wanted to chime in and say that this is exactly the kind of content I come to TASVideos for, I loved every second of it.
Thank you for your hard work, AmaizumiUni!
A warb degombs the brangy. Your gitch zanks and leils the warb.
SonicFan, having also seen some of your posts over in General, I'd like to say a few words to you about your participation in this community.
It's legitimately really cool that you are excited about TASing, and I want you to be here and have a good time. I hope you don't get discouraged by the frustration of some other members.
That said, their frustration is justified. You are making claims about your abilities that do not quite line up with reality, and that wastes people's time.
I think all the problems would be solved if you just present yourself in a more realistic fashion — you are new to TASing, and you've got a lot to learn, but there are a lot of people here who want to help you!
If you posted this same TAS in the Newbie Corner asking for feedback, that would be wonderful — it's great that you're trying out the tools, it's great that you made a full-game TAS, everything going on here is great except that you chose to submit it here without having verified that it beats existing records.
A warb degombs the brangy. Your gitch zanks and leils the warb.
Huh? Since always. I'm not actually sure what your objection could possibly be — I specifically mentioned the major exception, which is when speed is traded off for entertainment. Everything in my post was regarding situations where that's not happening.
A warb degombs the brangy. Your gitch zanks and leils the warb.
I am now watching a longer movie because you want to optimize the tasvideos submission parser's reported time instead of the real time.
Obviously people are going to have different preferences and that's fine, but I just want to point out that optimizing the viewing experience is a second-order concern. In the absence of speed/entertainment tradeoffs, the purpose of a TAS is to finish the game as quickly as possible, and it's what that means that we should be arguing about here.
The "shortest time to goal state" metric is the most obvious one, and is clearly valid. The "shortest input" metric is compelling to me though because it centers the idea of the TASer as a superplayer — who cares how long the stupid old console takes to figure out that you beat it? YOU know know with certainty that you did, and are free to just walk away and start your next run. Now that's efficiency!
Personally, I think a one-minute input that results in a two-hour movie that plays itself to completion is dramatically more exciting than a half-hour input with a half-hour movie. I might not actually watch all two hours, but I'd love to read about it and skim through it to understand how it all plays out.
A warb degombs the brangy. Your gitch zanks and leils the warb.
This is kind of a weird situation, since the only unfavorable comparisons are cancelled. It seems like it's definitely good for this site for this to be published one way or another, since the currently published movie is now obsoleted three different ways.
I personally love input length as a metric. I guess I'd be okay with switching which thing we care about on a game-by-game basis? I'd also be okay with them being separate branches when they are both interesting, but it seems that "having two monopoly runs published" is not a popular idea.
So I guess honestly my realistic preference here is to fudge the "beats all known records" rule slightly, and replace the published movie with this, but retain the link in the description to FractalFusions cancelled run.
Alternately, FractalFusion could just submit that run again, and that could be published.
Regardless of publication outcome, it's neat to have yet another Monopoly strategy. I was absolutely entertained and voted yes.
A warb degombs the brangy. Your gitch zanks and leils the warb.
Since this is likely to be a vault run anyway, I don't see a reason to violate the general site guideline of playing on the hardest difficulty.
I hope you can figure out, or someone can help you figure out, how to incorporate Tompa's improvements. This is a very impressive first TAS, and I'd like to see it published soon!
Unlike some others, I actually kind of loved its ridiculously awful graphical style. It's just.. so garish and strange, it's sort of amazing that it's associated with such a high-profile franchise. Thanks for your hard work!
A warb degombs the brangy. Your gitch zanks and leils the warb.
This is a pretty brilliant idea, even if it mostly produces false positives in its current incarnation — even if just that single discovery in Championship Pool turns out to be real, it'll have proved its worth.
It also made me wonder if anyone has tried fuzzing old games. It would take some work to define what an interesting outcome looks like, and you probably wouldn't get great results if you started from power-on — but what if you took an existing TAS as a source of valid states, and started from those?
A warb degombs the brangy. Your gitch zanks and leils the warb.
I'm interested in watching this, but not nearly enough to figure out setting up a DS emulator on OSX. I think you will probably not get in legal trouble for creating an encode.
A warb degombs the brangy. Your gitch zanks and leils the warb.
I would normally vote yes on a run like this, I enjoy weird obscure games and support the inclusive mission of the vault. But the fact that we have no idea whether any attempt at manipulating the random spawns was made makes it difficult to tell whether this run is up to our standards of technical quality.
With a more fleshed-out description I would happily vote yes.
A warb degombs the brangy. Your gitch zanks and leils the warb.
