I think if that were to happen, said bug must be investigated further so as to not jump the gun (like what happens when we declare a movie as "perfect" :P).
And since in SotN, it is the fastest ending that is actually acknowledged as an ending that entails beating the game, it is redundant to mention it.
You're right, the goal requirements are arbitrary,
That branch name was decided on by a group of actual SMW TASers, and it seems to solve the naming problem we were having before. Why should it be changed?
Alright, after what was done to Super Metroid, I can try making up a guideline for branching that wasn't thought of before Moons appeared.
Warp, I agree with you in everything
I think it would a good idea to name publications in a consistent manner. In other words, either: game in time by author or: game "alternative branch" in time by author The first form would indicate the "official world record" version, ie. the fastest completion of the game by any means, within the rules of the site. The second form would be any other TAS of the same game. The branch name in quotation marks always uniquely and unambiguously defines that particular branch (such as "100%", etc.) and its presence indicates that it's not the "default" WR. (It wouldn't be impossible for an alternate branch to be actually faster than the "official WR". It just means that it uses something that disqualifies it from being the official WR, eg. starting from a savestate.) It ought to be possible to have only "alternative branch" TASes, without an official WR (iow. there is no version of the TAS without a branch name in its name.) This would be the case with games for which completion speed is ill-defined or otherwise considered irrelevant. Descriptive tags ought to be limited to the movie classes.
I have de-embedded all images from rphaven.org in posts. I have also removed the avatars of the two users who use images from rphaven.org, and sent PMs.
[*]Not future-proof: Once new glitches are discovered that let you achieve the same thing, the categories need renaming.
[*]Unclear to non-experts: As Potato Stomper mentioned, the categories are not as easy to interpret for casual viewers as our previous system.
By the way, there are only two movies on this site out of almost 2500 that spell out two specific glitches avoided, so it really isn't a big problem as people make it out to be.
Yeah. It could have a branch name like "playaround" (to indicate that it's not a speed record.) ... The fastest completion gets no branch name, and the other an appropriate name that distinguishes it from the fastest one (ie. describes in one or a few words why it's different from the fastest one.) If you want a better opinion, please give a concrete example.
This sounds like a great idea in theory, and most people agree on this. The problem is that some of the "less glitched" runs ended up having horrible names.
And to add to what I said: I think it ought to be possible to have only "alternative branch" TASes, without an official WR (iow. there is no version of the TAS without a branch name in its name.) This would be the case with games for which completion speed is ill-defined or otherwise considered irrelevant.
It does not matter what way it (breaking the game) is done. Glitched is a run that breaks something in the game and forces it to admit it was completed while it wasn't.
Crash Bandicoot 2. Any% minimum level requirement Glitched% obtaining the minimum requirement in a level 100% max requirements
I'm suggesting a compromise: go back to "normal" runs having no label, while their "glitched" counterparts have a "uses [X]"-style branch name (instead of just "glitched"),
particularly newcomers who are often put off by glitched runs,
The default branch choice for this game (i.e. "any%") would not get the ending that this run gets, ergo the "best ending" label is required. At least, that's my understanding. If we only have one run for a game, and that run is a 100% run (where an any% run would be faster), shouldn't the run be labeled as "100%"?
