Here's another way to think about it: If Canabalt is an irrelevant, unnotable game, why does it have a C64 fan made port?
I never argued that it wasn't mentionable. I'm pretty sure I acknowledged the opposite by noting it inspired a billion clones. I argued that it's a moot point because there are plenty of other notable one button endless runner games, such as Flappy Bird, that I'm sure nobody wants to see. Which is why I asked why this run? "It has a glitch." The April 1st submissions are rife with "fastest to a glitch" rejected submissions of far more complex-to-TAS games than this.
A Flappy Bird TAS isn't interesting because its difficulty is static.
In Canabalt, the uncapped max speed means its difficulty rises until it is completely impossible non-TAS without getting stupidly lucky. (And then this happens, so we have an actual 'end', too!)
That's the difference.
So the answer is indeed: "The top speed is uncapped" and because of that "It has a glitch."
I feel like I should add that there are hundreds, maybe thousands of endless runner games. What makes this one special? That top speed is uncapped? That it has a glitch?
Doesn't this fall under the same category as things like rhythm games? There's no strategy, next to no RNG manipulation is needed, and aside from the apparent problems with emulation (which don't seem like it'd work in the run's favor), it's pretty damn close to trivial to do with the most basic TASing techniques. It shows a glitch and... is that it?
If I painted a wall red, specifically mixing the paint to the perfect #FF0000 shades, then pointed at the wall and said "This wall is red. Also, your mother is a whore", would the ad hominem make what I said false?
Well, that's not ad hominem for one. Those are two statements which could be true or untrue. "Your mother is a whore, therefore you can't tell what color this fence is," is ad hominem, unless of course his position is that sons of whores can't tell what color fences are.
======
As for the actual argument, the site already doesn't have a universal acceptance policy, even for licensed games. There's poor game choice for autoscrollers or rhythm games, and generally allowing the use of only the modes that are considered most entertaining. I believe games on different platforms (SNES vs Genesis for example) have also been rejected in the past for a superior version existing. Sometimes that's in terms of difficulty, sometimes it's in terms of character choice, sometimes it's in terms of game mode. Nobody wants to see or encourage 1,296 different runs of Final Fantasy using every possible party combination, even though the gameplay and strategies will be very different for four fighters vs four white mages. Same with easy vs hard mode, 1 player vs 2, etc.
The general guidelines in place are just that, general, and if multiple runs can sufficiently differentiate themselves from each other, often through tricks/glitches used, they're accepted. Hacks are subjected to stronger scrutiny in this regard precisely because they already are descended from the original game's engine so must bring something else the community here considers notable.
The reason HRM obsoleted Air 2 is that the two are not sufficiently differentiated from each other. Identical glitches were used in both, but more frequently and to overcome more difficult scenarios in one than the other. Length and perceived difficulty probably also figured into it.
As for who determines what is sufficiently differentiated? The forum users and judges. People asked for this obsoletion because they beleived the two showed the same concept, but one showed it better.
Super Metroid isn't a hack, and hacks are evaluated under a different set of rules, so no, that's not what's happening here.
That doesn't invalidate anything I said, though. Sure, hacks are judged under different criteria, but not COMPLETELY different criteria. Simply saying "I don't like hard-type hacks" is the same level of white-noise shitposting as going into a normal SMB run discussion thread and saying "I don't like sidescrolling platformers". The guidelines for hacked games state that the hack must be "high quality", and someone saying "I don't like X kind of hack" doesn't exactly give a lick of insight on what that person thinks of the actual quality of the hack itself. Even saying "The blocks look randomly placed" is more constructive, but that point is ruined by the fact that the people saying that are getting defensive about it when the actual experts come in and say that every block and item and enemy is strategically placed in a position where it needs to be used in some way.
That being said, how does a slightly different set of rules excuse "Hey everyone, I don't like hard-type hacks so I'm not going to watch this run" in any way? It's arbitrary in every way, not to mention insulting and narcissistic.
Most (All?) have given their reasons, not said "I refuse to watch any hacks like this." Argue with the points they've actually made and for the merit of the hack.
And can we please stop with all these claims of authority? If they/you are such an expert, it should have been easy to explain what sets this hack apart from all the others seemingly just like it. And no, ephemeral beauty that can only be seen by fellow experts does not count.
I don't go into the run threads saying "Super Metroid sucks and this run should be rejected for poor game choice" (...) That's basically what's happening here, isn't it?
Super Metroid isn't a hack, and hacks are evaluated under a different set of rules, so no, that's not what's happening here.
But the latter, Hard Relay Mario is not designed to be annoying, for it's a clever maze designed not only to test your techniques skills, but also your brains, so people who have the abilities could actually enjoy themselves solving the puzzle.
You know what generally don't make for particularly entertaining TASes? Mazes and puzzles. They're designed to only have one solution and play is tightly constrained within that solution. And here, we have a hack designed to narrow the corridor of possible actions for the player as tightly as possible.
I also really don't understand this "inherant beauty" you seem so keen on.
Complaining that you had no idea what was going on is like never having played Viewtiful Joe, watching a TAS of it and complaining that you had no idea what was going on. It's kind of assumed with TASes that if you haven't played the game (and this is different enough to be a new 'game' in a sense) then you might not follow along the first time you watch :)
Another hack designed to be constantly glitched/TAS through to begin with and is difficult to tell how it's different from 'normal' play because of that.
Being frame precise or mass glitching in a hack that can't be played at all without frame precision and mass glitching isn't particularly impressive to me. And a significant number of the tricks are already in other runs anyway, just not in blatantly artificial situations where they have to be used.
So let me quote this...
Formerly, another(slower) Happylee's HRM run was posted on a Chinese Nicovideo-like site, and OSO's run of HRM was posted on Youtube, both attracting a lot of attention. So I guess you won't be impressed by either of the 2 videos? Then that's your own business.
What were you even trying to say here? It's a bizarre history lesson with no relevance to my comments into what appears to be LOL OPINIONS, and if so, yes, no shit. I did indeed post my opinion.
Another hack designed to be constantly glitched/TAS through to begin with and is difficult to tell how it's different from 'normal' play because of that.
Being frame precise or mass glitching in a hack that can't be played at all without frame precision and mass glitching isn't particularly impressive to me. And a significant number of the tricks are already in other runs anyway, just not in blatantly artificial situations where they have to be used.
I feel like not putting these into the Vault is getting silly.
I agree with you. Please vote no on runs like this, so we know to put them into the vault.
People are always going to vote overwhelmingly yes if there's any improvement at all. It already happens with those horrible Atari games. Someone submits a movie, it gets overwhelmingly no votes, then with a cry of "frame wars!" three submissions later and a second or two faster, it's at 95%+ yes votes.
What the question actually says has only the barest relevance on how the vast majority of people vote. I really can't understand the yes votes on this kind of movie either. If you stopped them a quarter second before the glitch and asked "has this movie been entertaining so far?" the answer would be an overwhelming no, and the glitches themselves are about as uninteresting as it comes on anything but an extremely technical level.
I'd say it's beaten and certainly worth publishing, but like the Mario Land 2 run, also about the opposite of entertaining from anything but a technical perspective and the entertainment value there is still iffy at best. The entire entertainment comes from a second or two of a glitch. Nothing before it is entertaining in the slightest and the execution is all but impossible for a layperson to digest. It's a moment of "what the fuck" but that's it.
Also, for runs this short, I'm starting to feel like it's only a matter of time before someone codes a decent DP bot where all it needs is to be given a set of possible ending states and then set to go.
If anybody wants to improve this, here's the Japanese version (US version is a big reskin) about 5 minutes faster.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6SBpTtuzkk
A ton of time is saved with both the HP reducing item mentioned above and by just zeroing out the HP on the particularly lengthy events instead of finishing them and making up the medals elsewhere.
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.
I agree that it was intentional; I believe a townsperson clues you into it.
I was certain that it was also in the manual, but I just dug out my copy and it's not.
I'm fairly sure it was unintentional. I believe you can't do it at all in the PAL version.
I'd be more concerned about the low number of rerecords and that the stated goal is time but doing tricks seems to pause the game and give nothing but points.
