Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(144)
Joined: 7/16/2009
Posts: 686
Warp wrote:
[...] the game engine is so primitive that the entire level must be divided into a horizontal grid of large squares, each square consisting of two triangles, only the height of the corners being free [...]
This is still often the case, the squares just got smaller.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(144)
Joined: 7/16/2009
Posts: 686
Hm... There's a lot of games one your lists that I've never had the chance to play but would really like to, such as Shadow of the Colossus. Still, my top ten list:
10. Burnout 3
09. Bioshock
08. F-Zero GX
07. Montezuma's Return
06. F-Zero
05. Quake II
04. Myst
03. Super Mario 64
02. Ocarina of Time
01. Secret of Mana
A slightly strange list, I know, but I mostly ranked it on whatever I played the most. For me, actually finishing a game (let alone more than once) means I really like it.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(144)
Joined: 7/16/2009
Posts: 686
Record the audio using audacity whilst playing. I don't see your problem.
Edit: And you shouldn't use Fraps for recording the movie, FCEUX is capable of dumping it's own avi's.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(144)
Joined: 7/16/2009
Posts: 686
Truncated wrote:
Cons:
- It becomes harder to select a game for the next Dream Team contest, assuming the emulator is still going to be announced before the game. This is especially the case for emulators which only had 1 or 2 suggested games. I would hate it if one team won because they guessed the correct game and had a weeks headstart, and the other teams guessed incorrectly.
Just give the names of a few games (so not all) you were considering but don't include any of the games you're considering for the next competition. Obviously, you can also announce that this is what you'll do, but add the game for the next competition. Anyone who has read this post will have no way to deduce what the next game may or may not be.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(144)
Joined: 7/16/2009
Posts: 686
Hm... I don't think it would be that hard to make a program that has a few (drop-down) boxes (like console and filename) and gives you a fancy batch file. I doubt we could do more than that but I must admit that I haven't actually looked at the licenses of the programs used.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(144)
Joined: 7/16/2009
Posts: 686
p4wn3r wrote:
How come this guy's not in the Hall of Fame then?
Anyway, great improvement (dude... Seconds?!) and the lack of graphical glitches made the run even more surreal to me. I vote for the tossing of the Master Balls as the screenshot.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(144)
Joined: 7/16/2009
Posts: 686
DarkKobold wrote:
andymac wrote:
... and heuristic algorithms have always been feasable, but generally unnecessary since it's usually easier to make the run by hand ....
And in some cases, a heuristic algorithm will fail. A heuristic algorithm can't really be programmed to handle novel happenings. For example, no algorithm could have been written to find this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKZ7AunBKtM#t=3m26s
Why not? An algorithm should only be fed the end state (a list of memory addresses and the values you want them to be) and the Rom. It should then "reverse" all functions from the ROM and use the new functions to determine from what states it is possible to reach the end state. Then determine from what state you can reach those states and so on until you get to the starting state.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(144)
Joined: 7/16/2009
Posts: 686
brocoli wrote:
Also, I think that counting releases is better: imagine a game where you control a rocket and needs to touch the point of coordinates X. If there's some gravity involved, you may need to stop accelerating not to miss the target, thus adding one meaningful "release" input.
Any button released will first have to be pressed, any button pressed will have to be released before you can press it again. It doesn't matter whether you count presses or releases, they will be equal. (Although, for the ease of writing a counting program, presses might be better, as you don't have to add one for each button held at the last frame.)
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(144)
Joined: 7/16/2009
Posts: 686
jlun2 wrote:
In TASMovie Editor, you seem to be only pressing the start button. And on the Snes9x, it says unsupported movie version. So I think you should redo runs, as they seem to be corrupt.
I've had similar problems with TASMovie Editor, and it has nothing to do with corruption of movies. In the end, the only thing that worked for me was JXQs Quick Hex. TASMovie Editor just ended up inserting utter garbage into my movie files. It seemed to depend on the game though, so I think it has some problems with reading ROM headers.
As for the original problem: I can't help you with that, sorry.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(144)
Joined: 7/16/2009
Posts: 686
Pointless Boy wrote:
Other than the obvious choices of amassing wealth and undoing major mistakes, I bet a lot of people would do really bad things just for the experience, and then rewind so they never happened except in your memory.
The real question is, is that immoral?
Yay, ethical questions applied to TASing! Is it immoral to retry killing-an-enemy a thousand times over?
Anyway, I'd probably do this exact thing. Make the world go to hell just for the heck of it, then rewind. I'd also use it for tests, it'd be awesome if you were able to turn in the answer sheet before you receive the questions.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(144)
Joined: 7/16/2009
Posts: 686
Warp wrote:
Maybe what ticks me off a bit here is the attitude some people seem to have about this subject. An attitude like it's hard to believe how anybody could have any objection to the idea (ie. that cheats are ok if the only way to access them is by glitching), like if it was some kind of given that it's pretty obviously ok, and it's strange to claim otherwise.
It's hard not to have that attitude, considering you're coming into the discussion with the exact same attitude, but for the opposing side. You act(ed, not anymore) like it's unthinkable that this would be accepted, because it's clearly cheating.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(144)
Joined: 7/16/2009
Posts: 686
creaothceann wrote:
The problem is that the PC allows very different vertical resolutions. All resolutions must be converted to a common one. (I think this was discussed somewhere here before.) Even DOSBox doesn't encode them into the same AVI file. You either have to apply some stretching or add black bars, and I think there is another, better alternative.
As much as I may agree with you on the fact that adding black bars is a bad option (it looks hella ugly), I don't feel that adding scan lines is a good option as well. Mostly due to the fact that it makes the encode look inconsistent, as it will have parts with, and parts without scan lines. I therefor feel that stretching is the best option, using whatever algorithm most resembles the actual result on a computer. It may not look as pretty, but it will look a lot more consistent.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(144)
Joined: 7/16/2009
Posts: 686
creaothceann wrote:
What computer - the emulated one? It doesn't stretch at all, it just writes to the graphic card's video memory. The graphic card generates a signal that contains the brightness information for each electron cannon (R, G & B), and the CRT distributes that evenly across the surface. The lines aren't stretched at all; they just have more or less space between them.
So what happens if you were to hook it up to an LCD display? You may consider "what you would see" to be the most authentic. But, considering no encode so far has used filters to make it look like it was being played on an actual television set, it appears that the main view is that the signal, as produced by the graphics card, is the most authentic. And this signal does not contain the scan lines.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(144)
Joined: 7/16/2009
Posts: 686
creaothceann wrote:
So this filter doesn't have to be used for most of the run, but it might still be useful for the lower-res parts to make the video uniformly 4:3.
I doubt sometimes having scan lines would improve the movie. Also, if you're going for authenticity, how does the computer deal with it? I'm pretty sure it uses a stretching algorithm, so we should use it as well.
Scan lines occur due to limitations in the monitor, and don't have anything to do with the actual image displayed.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(144)
Joined: 7/16/2009
Posts: 686
Nice video. I really like the torches and doors being animated while off screen. It caused some actions to make a lot more sense (you actually see the result of running over some pressure plates).
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(144)
Joined: 7/16/2009
Posts: 686
I agree with Zeupar. Considering the level layouts, a 100% run would already show of many, many great tricks and surprises and due to the gaps there will be plenty of diversity. I actually think a playaround would be less entertaining, due to the player not having any goals to work towards.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(144)
Joined: 7/16/2009
Posts: 686
darkszero wrote:
The forum logo starts repeating when your browser window is too large:
http://puu.sh/aR0
The background image is simply not large enought.
That actually just looks like bad coding. Wouldn't it be a lot safer to use different images for the logo and the gradient? Also, a gradient that's just 1 pixel width and is repeated loads a lot faster, in addition to working with any display width.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(144)
Joined: 7/16/2009
Posts: 686
Do I need to even say it? Hell yeah. Funny thing is, this game is way more glitchy than this route shows. Nice find also that the 4th glitched boss acts as a door.
