Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(12)
Joined: 6/17/2006
Posts: 501
I think the problem is that "beating the game" is not well-defined by itself. Personally, I consider reaching the end of the ending sequence to be a requirement. It doesn't here. Whether this criteria should be a requirement is up for the staff to decide, of course.
Based on the past decision I mentioned however, I thought this criteria was indeed required, so I'm a bit confused here. I just wanted some clarification on the matter.
Patashu wrote:
If a movie that produces the ending properly is submitted, even if it's slower, it should obsolete this. The main purpose of publishing this movie is thus to draw attention to 'hey, you can do a really cool game ending glitch in this game, check it out' basically.
This, however, I completely disagree with. As long as the rule "the movie must be complete" stands, that argument is irrelevant. Not to mention that any normal speedrun would obsolete this movie based on this logic.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(12)
Joined: 6/17/2006
Posts: 501
May I ask why this movie got published? The ending screen never shows up and the movie ends on an infinite cutscene earlier in the ending sequence than expected. I thought beating the game was a requirement?
I know past decisions aren't a good reference, but I just wanted to point out that #3903: Masterjun & FractalFusion's GBC Pokémon: Red/Green/Blue/Yellow Version "glitched" in 01:10.47 was rejected on the same grounds. What's different then and now?
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(12)
Joined: 6/17/2006
Posts: 501
I hope this time this movie will actually get published. Last time, #4144: morningpee's DS Tetris DS "Push Mode Level 5" in 00:13.06 was unfairly rejected from Vault even though it qualified for it, and I didn't even get a reply from the Senior I contacted back in the day (FractalFusion) to contest the decision. (I still want to contest the decision by the way.)
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(12)
Joined: 6/17/2006
Posts: 501
Eszik wrote:
Basically most of the people (including me) answer the question "Should this movie get published?" instead of "Did you find this movie entertaining?".
Not sure why you're thinking that. I always vote about on the entertainment factor. And seeing a classic game betting completely broken in a few seconds is definitely entertaining for me. :)
By the way, this submission has been on the queue for a while now. What's the hold up?
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(12)
Joined: 6/17/2006
Posts: 501
It's not 100% if you don't collect the Zero parts! And this run doesn't collect them, making it equivalent to the current any% publication. And yet, it's slower.
Voting No.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(12)
Joined: 6/17/2006
Posts: 501
a) Considering the maximum score is 9999990, this is a completely arbitrary goal.
b) This run doesn't beat the game, which is a requirement.
c) This run is suboptimal. Just looking at the input file, I can see that right and Y are constantly held even after reaching max speed, which causes Mario to constantly cycle to a slower speed.
d) This is the 3rd submission by Kaizoboy in a month that doesn't comply with the movie rules. I believe a warning is in order.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(12)
Joined: 6/17/2006
Posts: 501
For people saying that seeing "ROCKMAN HAS ENDED" on the screen counts as beating the game, here is a counterexample.
That said, I agree with feos here. The ending routine plays out and behaves exactly as when beating the game normally. What is seen on the screen after pressing START are defeated robot masters flags, which are completely irrelevant to beating the game. I don't see any reason why this movie wouldn't be acceptable under those conditions.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(12)
Joined: 6/17/2006
Posts: 501
Yes vote, and I agree that it should obsolete both categories (and not the others) into a single "game end glitch" category, because the only reason they were separate was for the use of the GT Code in the faster run.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(12)
Joined: 6/17/2006
Posts: 501
Ilari wrote:
SmashManiac wrote:
I'm happy to see that this was caught, but how were you able to figure out that there was an emulator bug in the first place? Was it because you tried syncing the movie on a different build and failed, or was there a different reason?
Got a report that there was trouble syncing it on the latest beta build and went to investigate.
Don't offhand remember how I stubled upon the SA1 emulation bug.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(12)
Joined: 6/17/2006
Posts: 501
TASVideoAgent wrote:
<a>Nach</a>: After some discussions with the authors of the run and software, and some testing, it appears this run depends on various compile time specifics of the emulator.
I'm happy to see that this was caught, but how were you able to figure out that there was an emulator bug in the first place? Was it because you tried syncing the movie on a different build and failed, or was there a different reason?
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(12)
Joined: 6/17/2006
Posts: 501
To close this debate about the fairy trick, even Nintendo mentions this trick on the Zelda Universe website, in the FAQ for this game and in their walkthrough.
Personally, I'm concerned about the damage boost over the first cliff, so I can't consider this run glitchless. Still, the run is well executed, so I'm voting Meh.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(12)
Joined: 6/17/2006
Posts: 501
You can't fool me RealMyop! I've seen all your Mario Paint TAS before! How dare you try to deceive us?
Also, who cares about Mega CD emulation issues when the Laserdisc version of Road Blaster is fully playable on DAPHNE? All you needed to do was to import the source code, add re-recording features to it and implement it into BizHawk. You would have been able to avoid using the white van completely too by ejecting the disc at the right time.
Really, I'm disappointed.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(12)
Joined: 6/17/2006
Posts: 501
This whole debate about the GT Code is ridiculous. Some people will consider it OK and some other people won't and there's no way to convince everybody to go on the same side since the whole debate is based on imprecise definitions and opinions. The only way to go that makes sense is to publish this run in a separate category in order to please both groups.
Patashu wrote:
The TASer can decide if they think 'real time elapsed in run' or 'frame count of input' or 'in game time' is the more important metric for speed.
There's been a lot of debate about allowing 'real time elapsed in run' goals. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think any of them has been published because of the arbitrary nature of when exactly is a game considered beaten.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(12)
Joined: 6/17/2006
Posts: 501
I should point out that the cheating rule states that it's not strict and motivated by the same concept as the guideline that says you should play on the hardest difficulty. Said guideline states that if the difference in difficulty is inapplicable for the run, then selecting the hardest mode is unnecessary.
Considering this, I don't see any problem with the usage of the GT Code here, since playing the game is not the point of this run. Of course, it should not obsolete other runs, since they don't use cheats. (And also because it would make Warp very sad.)
Also, I have a question: are the last 2 input frames necessary? Because if they aren't, I think it would be smart to delete them, because they artificially inflate the frame count. (Not that I don't care about saving the animals or 999% completion, but if it's slower it's not worth it in my opinion - even if it's just for 2 frames.)
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(12)
Joined: 6/17/2006
Posts: 501
I feel that the goal requirements is rather arbitrary and end up becoming a waste of time. As FractalFusion pointed out, I think you would have greatly benefited in sharing your thoughts and WIPs with the community while creating your run. Also, I can only disagree with the speed-entertainment trade-offs, since fastest speed is always more impressive and therefore more entertaining to me.
That said, I can only congratulate you in shaving off almost half the time of the current publication. Kudos! :)
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(12)
Joined: 6/17/2006
Posts: 501
Wow, another arbitrary code execution run, and this time on the PSX! Pretty cool! Can't wait to read about the detailed explanation as to what is happening!
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(12)
Joined: 6/17/2006
Posts: 501
Nach wrote:
feos wrote:
And in Moons and higher it works like this: "Are 2 runs considered similar by the audience, one of them being better?" I don't see a single post considering they are so similar one needs to be obsoleted. Guess why? Because they are different enough.
How are they different enough? The first 97 seconds or so are identical, with the that other movie being only ~99 seconds long. The only difference between them is the payload. That other movie enters the pointer to the ending and then jumps to the ending sequence, this movie enters some new code, enters a pointer to it, and jumps to that, and then demonstrates the two new games added before the new ultra brief Masterjun'd final ending screen.
I agree with Nach that both movies are very similar. The only difference is the arbitrary code executed and the result afterwards.
However, I don't see that as a problem to have both movies published side-by-side, because they have different entertainment values for me. One is an any% record, the other a fastest payload record combined with a piece of art. The fact that both movies uses the same route and the same payload is completely irrelevant to me.
In addition, obsoletion would be a major problem because we would no longer have an any% record without constraints!! A compromise to consider though would be to downgrade the any% publication to the Vault tier, if a fair amount of people feel that the entertainment value of the any% run is fully included in this submission.
For the long term though, I think the tier system I suggested would be a better solution to avoid problems like that in the future.
