Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(26)
Joined: 8/29/2011
Posts: 1206
Location: Amsterdam
xnamkcor wrote:
Radiant wrote:
xnamkcor wrote:
Radiant wrote:
xnamkcor wrote:
Air 1 and 2 showed their reason to be included by getting published.
Please show me a source for that. Published by whom, and where?
It got obsoleted.
You didn't answer my question. You've just implied that Air 2 has been published by some commercial entity equivalent to Apogee or Activision. I'm really curious as to when that happened, please show me a source of that.
That's nothing but sophistry, so I'm done talking to you now. You've made your point and almost nobody appears to agree with it; I see little value for you in repeating your point a second or a third time.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(26)
Joined: 8/29/2011
Posts: 1206
Location: Amsterdam
Nach wrote:
I'd just point out that some very early DOS games that were from what later became real companies, like the Kroz series, is a poor game compared to say the Skunny series, by authors who never developed into a reputable game publisher.
I'd be more likely to accept a TAS of a Skunny game than a Kroz .
Good point; although I would argue to allow both games.
Kroz did get published by Softdisk, not just by its author or just by the publisher founded by its author (i.e. Apogee). Aside from that, Skunny was created six years later and takes advantage of newer hardware; it's true that Skunny is technically better, but in the same sense that any SNES title is technically better than any A8700 game. Either way, I'd say that Kroz is sufficiently notable to qualify under Vault rules.
But, to strike a further comparison, ZZT is a game similar to Kroz that has a level editor (and it was created by Apogee's traditional rival, Epic). While I'd likewise argue that ZZT itself is sufficiently notable, I'd say that pretty much all custom scenarios made with the ZZT editor are not.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(26)
Joined: 8/29/2011
Posts: 1206
Location: Amsterdam
xnamkcor wrote:
Radiant wrote:
xnamkcor wrote:
Air 1 and 2 showed their reason to be included by getting published.
Please show me a source for that. Published by whom, and where?
It got obsoleted.
You didn't answer my question. You've just implied that Air 2 has been published by some commercial entity equivalent to Apogee or Activision. I'm really curious as to when that happened, please show me a source of that.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(26)
Joined: 8/29/2011
Posts: 1206
Location: Amsterdam
xnamkcor wrote:
Wasn't Bible Adventures an unlicensed game but was made by a legitimate publisher?
Well, then that would make it eligible for running on TASvideos.
I didn't say that "no unlicensed game may go on TASvideos". Rather, I said that "licensed games may go on TASvideos (if the run is good)" and unlicensed ones need to be judged in some other way.
Nach wrote:
Yet in the early DOS games, "My own tetris clone #24601" would be featured prominently for sale in computer stores, and possibly even bought up by a larger company.
Sure. But if a game is featured prominently in computer stores, then it should easily be notable enough for a run on the site here. Likewise if it got bought up by a larger company.
My point is that these aren't criteria to exclude large amounts of games, but rather that games must show a reason to be included on the site. An official license (e.g. Super Metroid) is such a reason. Being extremely famous (e.g. Cave Story) is another such a reason. If a game is neither licensed nor famous, well perhaps there's another reason to include it anyway, but if we can't find such a reason, the game doesn't get a run on TASvideos. Here's some precedent for that.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(26)
Joined: 8/29/2011
Posts: 1206
Location: Amsterdam
Nach wrote:
Radiant wrote:
or unlicensed games (e.g. Cave Story)
Before the advent of Windows 8 with its store, there was no licensing for Windows. So every game is unlicensed, be it Cave Story or Doom 3.
That's a good point, but I'd say that any DOS/Windows game published by an actual commercial publisher counts as the equivalent of "licensed for the NES"; as opposed to the many games that are self-published on the internet.
For example, Commander Keen counts as the equivalent of licensed (as it is published commercially by Apogee), as does Doom 3 (published by Activision), whereas "My own tetris clone #24601" does not.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(26)
Joined: 8/29/2011
Posts: 1206
Location: Amsterdam
I don't understand what's so hard about this.
(1) TASvideos wants quality runs of quality games.
(2) There are three relevant kinds of games: (a) licensed games, (b) hacks of licensed games, and (c) unlicensed games.
(3) Licensed games are almost always of decent quality; even those games that are commercially panned tend to be of pretty good technical quality. The few that aren't (e.g. ET or Daikatana) tend to fall under "so bad it's good", in that these games are renowned for how bad they are, and viewers are interested in seeing how bad it really is.
(4) The overwhelming majority of hacks and of unlicensed games are total and utter crap. My apologies to any hackers and game designers in the audience, but most of them just are pretty bad; just check any site that lists a couple thousand of them. Now granted, there are numerous hacks (e.g. Super Demo World) or unlicensed games (e.g. Cave Story) that are excellent.
(5) Therefore, we accept runs of all licensed games; and we accept runs of hacks and unlicensed games if we consider them sufficiently well-made and notable. Very simple. "Extra Mario Bros" is well-made and notable, so it goes on the site. "Lololol I replaec mario with a cow and an etxra pipe in L3" is not well-made and not notable, so it does not go on the site. Of course, the run itself needs to be of good quality as well.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(26)
Joined: 8/29/2011
Posts: 1206
Location: Amsterdam
I think it's a good decision to have this run obsolete Air. Both hacks are built on the same principle, i.e. to be ultra-hard, requiring glitches to get through the level, and requiring savestates to actually play.
Ultimately this is still a Super Mario Bros run; we don't need a run for every single ROMhack (and there are thousands of those), for the same reason that we don't need a run of every possible goal people could come up with (e.g. minimum keypresses, minimum coins, minimum koopa kills while in a coinless walkathon, and so forth).
It's about quality, and about the fact that different branches of a game should be meaningfully distinct from one another.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(26)
Joined: 8/29/2011
Posts: 1206
Location: Amsterdam
Great run, except for the last three minutes. I would strongly prefer that you make a submission that kills the final boss directly; having a handful more input frames for a three minutes shorter playtime would surely be an improvement.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(26)
Joined: 8/29/2011
Posts: 1206
Location: Amsterdam
Based on the discussion here, it strikes me that "three items + flower + yar + indianajones + that so-called 'true ending'" would be a better definition of 100%.
That said, I still don't see that as meaningfully distinct from the published any% run. I don't think that either one-ups (the flower) or easter eggs (yar/indy) have anything to do with 100% runs.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(26)
Joined: 8/29/2011
Posts: 1206
Location: Amsterdam
w7n wrote:
First, it's one of the more well-known SMB hacks.
Do you have some evidence for this claim? Because googling it suggests that it's really not a well-known hack at all.
The thing is, we don't need this run to show off a noclip or air jumping glitch, because the several SMB runs we have already do that.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(26)
Joined: 8/29/2011
Posts: 1206
Location: Amsterdam
w7n wrote:
So it appears that there are some people who consider this hack to have a poorly designed course?
No, I'm saying that there are dozens or hundreds of Mario romhacks that are extra hard, look like random blocks thrown together, and can only be played with savestates. Just at romhacking.net they have 196 SMB hacks, most of which are extra hard and savestate-only; most of these 196 hacks are either indistinguishable from this one or actually look better.
If you look at google, then ROM hacks like Extra Mario Bros, Super Demo World, Rockman No Constancy or Zelda Parallel Worlds are famous; this one is not even a blip on the radar.
So while this is technically a well-made run, the hack is not notable; it's not at all famous and not noticeably different from dozens of similar ROM hacks.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(26)
Joined: 8/29/2011
Posts: 1206
Location: Amsterdam
SMW romhacks with crappy appearance and ludicrous difficulty are a dime a dozen. I fail to see how this one is notable.
Also, I found it boring to watch, and the levels look like line noise. I suggest this should be rejected for poor game choice.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(26)
Joined: 8/29/2011
Posts: 1206
Location: Amsterdam
I believe the flower in the ET game is just a one-up item; it is not something that is required for "100% completion". Therefore I don't feel that "flower%" counts as a distinct branch for this game.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(26)
Joined: 8/29/2011
Posts: 1206
Location: Amsterdam
sack_bot wrote:
The official website seems to say that you can still kill up to 5 enemies while still counting as "pacifist" (?) Can you explain this better?
You should probably go for the TAS definition of "zero kills" rather than the somewhat-arbitrary in-game definition :) Plus, you get the Massacre weapon at zero kills which makes the last boss both faster and cooler to watch.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(26)
Joined: 8/29/2011
Posts: 1206
Location: Amsterdam
feos wrote:
I said enough times how "clear" is subjective.
Radiant wrote:
"Major skip glitch" strikes me as very similar to "major glitch abuse", and both of those are subjective, and not applied consistently.
So you don't think when majority of the game is skipped needs a tag? No problem. But as I said, "heavy glitch abuse" is usually understood as not as heavy as skipping to game end. ACE and game end skips make that tag somewhat "medium glitch abuse" now. True, it was heavy when it was added. Now that level of glitchiness isn't maximal.
I really don't see the point of a poll like this if you're just going to badger the people who disagree with you, and then implement your own ideas regardless of what anyone else says.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(26)
Joined: 8/29/2011
Posts: 1206
Location: Amsterdam
Well, "boss skip glitch" has the advantage of being clear and objectively definable.
"Major skip glitch" strikes me as very similar to "major glitch abuse", and both of those are subjective, and not applied consistently.
TAS'ing is about precision, so being precise in tagging is a good thing. If that means breaking up a vague superset tag into clearer subset tags, that's clearly an improvement.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(26)
Joined: 8/29/2011
Posts: 1206
Location: Amsterdam
Awesome!
I see you're keeping up the tradition of the original game's run to also kill basically everything that dares to come near you. Good :)
I was hoping there'd be a way to glitch past the Guardian's Maze, but I guess that's not possible.
I'm not sure why you're waiting for the sandcrocs around 7:30?
(edit) Wait, did you just do the aqueduct without the air tank? Lol!
