Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(26)
Joined: 8/29/2011
Posts: 1206
Location: Amsterdam
Seriously? Submit this run. You've worked hard on it and it's awesome. Nobody cares about scores, people care about that you beat the impossible mode of the game.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(26)
Joined: 8/29/2011
Posts: 1206
Location: Amsterdam
CoolKirby wrote:
I think he means those two runs don't actually use two players, so they don't need a branch name.
Wait, then why are they obsoleted by this 2P movie when there's a different 1P branch for the game?
(edit) wait, I think I got it. The chain is incorrect. There are two 1P movies from 2004, which were obsoleted by a faster movie in 2007 which happened to be 2P. Then, six years later, somebody saw the 2P movie and decided to make a 1P movie as a separate branch, and which got obsoleted twice since by other 1P movies. So what should happen is that movie 105 counts as obsoleted by 2401 (rather than 830) so that it ends up in the proper branch and obsoletion chain.
Aside from that, what's an OAM?
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(26)
Joined: 8/29/2011
Posts: 1206
Location: Amsterdam
FractalFusion wrote:
Regarding retroactive obsoletion, I have thought about the issue for a while but I think that the use of retroactive obsoletion may open up a can of worms.
I'm not sure how retroactive obsoletion is more of a can of worms than retroactively moving to a tier that the run didn't qualify for when it was published.
Clearly we'll need a discussion at some point on how to deal with moon tier movies with poor entertainment ratings; it feels wrong to leave those in moon indefinitely, and not all of them can just be moved to vault tier.
They both have the movie class "One player in a multiplayer game". I don't know if they need a tag (you mean branch name?) or not.
I meant branch name, yes. That's because in this game, one-player mode is actually faster (and we have a run for that) so the two-player version branch needs to identify itself as such.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(26)
Joined: 8/29/2011
Posts: 1206
Location: Amsterdam
Excellent work!
I concur that the run would look better if it ends with the last hit on MS and the endgame movie, instead of skipping the movie and entering your initials. I'm pretty sure that reaching the end movie counts as "completing the game".
(edit) seriously that MS fight is beyond ridiculous :D
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(26)
Joined: 8/29/2011
Posts: 1206
Location: Amsterdam
Nach wrote:
Street Fighter 2 is one of the most influential games of all time. It single handedly revitalized the arcade scene. It had 5 editions made, and even recently, a 6th. It was one of the top selling SNES games. It had many bootleg versions at the arcade and on various consoles. Some of its bootlegs even had bootlegs. It caused many to create clones. The Mortal Kombat series was probably inspired by it, even though it's not a clone. It received numerous sequels, many of which were well received too.
If your bootlegs are getting bootlegs, you know you must be doing something right :D
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(26)
Joined: 8/29/2011
Posts: 1206
Location: Amsterdam
Yes, I'm voting no because I believe this belongs in the vault.
Based on Mothrayas's links, I understand that this is the first and most well-known attempt to port SF2 to the NES (even if by a third party) and the other similar roms are based on this one. I believe that makes it sufficiently notable.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(26)
Joined: 8/29/2011
Posts: 1206
Location: Amsterdam
Masterjun wrote:
We go back to the time my, let's call it, "brown platform glitch" movie was published. Of course it's the fastest run so it should be called any%. Now the other run has to be called "no brown platform glitch".
That's possible, yes. An alternative possibility is to call both of them "any%" and have the BPglitch run obsolete the other one. This depends on whether the judges think they are worth having as separate categories.
Anyway, compared to what we currently need to do when a movie is published (e.g. debate and polls, judge's decision, encoding) I don't think occasionally renaming an older run is a big deal.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(26)
Joined: 8/29/2011
Posts: 1206
Location: Amsterdam
In practice, it's not "over and over again", it's only in the rare case that a major new glitch is discovered.
Aside from that, if there's a "no egg glitch" run and a XYZ glitch gets discovered, then that doesn't mean the "no egg" run is now "no egg no XYZ"; it means that this run should be updated at some point since we now know a way to do it faster. After all, the goal of that run is to complete the game without egg glitching. That it happens to not use a glitch that we didn't know about back then is coincidental.
The purpose of a branch name is not to describe the run, but to state the goal of the run.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(26)
Joined: 8/29/2011
Posts: 1206
Location: Amsterdam
feos wrote:
Radiant wrote:
Thankfully, the majority of games initialize their RAM before reading it, and for these games it's actually irrelevant what the initial RAM state of the emulator is.
Interesting. Okay, I think it would make sense to do the following test: add an option to an emulator to start with randomized initial RAM instead of patterned 0000FFFF; then see which of our existing runs on that emulator still sync.
Anyway, I believe we had lengthy discussion and a poll about this subject; perhaps that central thread would be a better place for further debate than this grue'd game?
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(26)
Joined: 8/29/2011
Posts: 1206
Location: Amsterdam
I believe it makes most sense to keep branches consistent in naming; we know these runs don't count as any% now, so it would be clearest to rename them "no <foo> glitch". This is similar to how, if a new and faster branch is created for a movie currently named any%, we should rename the existing branch.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(26)
Joined: 8/29/2011
Posts: 1206
Location: Amsterdam
Thankfully, the majority of games initialize their RAM before reading it, and for these games it's actually irrelevant what the initial RAM state of the emulator is.
Conversely, [2401] NES Super C "1 player" by Airwe in 12:29.63 and its family should have no tag for the single-player runs, and a "2 player" tag for the two-player runs; this is because single player is faster in that game and therefore not a restriction.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(26)
Joined: 8/29/2011
Posts: 1206
Location: Amsterdam
Yep :)
Well, it's a matter of finding the correct label. In the case of SMW, the unlabeled (any%) run is indeed the fastest at 1:39. So the run Masterjun mentions does something different, resulting in a 9:57 run that is more entertaining.
As I understand it, there is some glitch that is used in the former, but not the latter; but it is not clear to me which one. Please enlighten us, so that the latter can be renamed "no <foo> glitch" instead of the incorrect "no memory corruption". Likewise, the Yoshi run should be "no <bar> glitch" instead.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(26)
Joined: 8/29/2011
Posts: 1206
Location: Amsterdam
Tub wrote:
As an aside, aren't ram cells guaranteed to contain just zeros after power loss?
No, they don't.
Most games start by zero'ing all the RAM that they actually need, before they use it; some games omit that step. We had a lengthy debate about that just a month ago.
