If the goal was highest score, then in the first stage, you should be jumping back and forth over one of the fire pots because that earns more points (200 each time) than what you lose from time/bonus ticking down. Same in the second level with jumping over anything. Not to mention that you can reset the bonus/time by dying to rack up even more points.
So even the goal choice isn't well fulfilled.
I don't understand how a video with as few as eight votes (three of which are "no") gets into moon tier, when other movies with imilar votes end up in the vault, and movies like this get vaulted with fifteen yes votes.
Youtube isn't any better. Many videos have pointless ads on them.
Offtopic, but that's a bit inaccurate. Youtube's ads come in two forms. If you've uploaded someone else's copyrighted material, they'll automatically insert ads and the proceeds go to the copyright holder. The other way is if the uploader themself chooses to put ads in their videos. It's not just something Youtube itself automatically does like most other video hosting sites do.
The Chuck Rock rejection is precedent for a rule being enforced (that snes9x is deprecated and no longer accepted). I suppose the accepted snes9x runs set a precedent for exceptions being made. So it can still go both ways.
The Chuck Rock run is also a little different though. There was no previous run, it wasn't well received, and from eyeball comparison to the Genesis version, appeared suboptimal.
Here, the decision to reject based on emulator choice would maintain a run known to be worse. It's not a decision to just accept or reject this run in isolation. It's effectively a decision between two runs: a 'bad' run because of emulator choice, or a worse run with the same emulator choice. It seems a little crazy to me to prefer the latter.
I'd suggest that the rule regarding emulator choice should just be amended to no going backward on emulator accuracy. If a game has no runs, the preferred one has to be used. If it already has a run, a new run cannot be done on a less accurate emulator than the current published version.
/$.02
Still,I think this run is publishable on the basis that it is the best offered on the site's standards
Actually, I've shown that it badly fails to meet technical muster to which you have given no answer except declaring RNG manipulation, a normally integral part of TASing, to be beyond you, and once we take your vote out, it has only a 25% approval rating, so...
Which standards does it exemplify again?
I hate to bump this, but this is more directed to Nach/the judging decision and comments
it is unjust to pit runs which use passwords, inferior emulators, and are simply video which cannot be tested, against a run made with a proper emulator with a proper starting point and running process which is known to be clean and fair
That run is five years old so bagging on it for emulator choice seems really weird, the password used is to set it to Hard mode (enemies have more health), and 4432 is an old Japanese TASer mainly known for his Kirby stuff, so insinuating that he cheated it somehow is pretty iffy.
Rejecting it as a valid comparison for those reasons is pretty faulty or outright wrong in the case of the password.
None of us can prove that it's completely impossible or possible to do that.
What I do know is that i couldn't manage to switch the item positions without changing the layout,no button combination or simply waiting gave me a result with different item position(and i managed to cycle through possibilities a few times in a few stages).Someone who is good with memory adresses and scripting should be able to prove me right or wrong,because no judgement without it is better than anybody's else judgement.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suEeI5vJd0U
Here you go. Here's five year old proof that it can be done with half as many characters.
Note that at the end of the first world, you're BEHIND the single player by about 3 seconds AND your characters don't have as many power ups as his, despite 1p only being able to cover about half as much ground more or less AND him taking extra time to set it to HARD (not to mention in BEING on Hard).
Edit: I'm also a little curious as to why you accused that run of cheating.
Why would you publish a run with 2 yes votes and 2 no votes? In addition, the only feedback for the run are highly critical posts by Tangent. So not only is there clearly insufficient feedback on which to base a decision, the existing feedback is negative enough to seriously doubt whether this run is publication worthy.
I seriously wasn't expecting this to go through at all. If you need some patently obvious evidence that it's extremely suboptimal and didn't have any planning or research into it...
http://www.gamefaqs.com/snes/564897-super-bomberman-3/faqs/32363
Items are hard set by level, location is random. Checked it for 2 player too. Distribution is identical.
Which means an excrutiatingly obvious time saver is picking up the skates (increased walking speed, up to 9 total) in stages 1-1 and stages 1-3, which this run doesn't do. He also misses the skates in 3-3 (was checking to make sure he got block pass).
Missing/skipping speed up items that early in the game is...
Edit:
For giggles, I also checked 2-2, 2-4, and 4-1. Doesn't pick up the skates in any of them.
Meh Vote.
This vote will change to a NO, if the two questions can be answered in what I thought or I will reconsider changing to NO if you can give the exact fact for not attacking the characters on the ground.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ci3I9xrNF9c
You absolutely can hit characters on the ground. Only the most basic two hit combos are used and there are also a bunch of sloppy missed attacks, and attacks really don't look at all like they're being done as soon as possible so it's definitely nowhere near as fast as it could be, and it can't really function as a playaround either.
but my TAS is faster than the one presented,some of the stages are slower,but not all.
Is there another TAS which i'm not aware of?
No, but doesn't existing records imply individual stages in an existing run? Unless you have a reason like "RNG, Frame Rule, Speed/Entertainment tradeoff, etc.
The layout is random!I'm not sure how many frames i'll have to wait to get the exact layout that would give me the same strategy to "tie" these individual stages.This is why i listed the improvements as better luck manipulation.Also,i wouldn't even be able to use the same strategies as the item distribution for 2 players would be totally different.
You also have twice as many characters doing the same amount of work. You should be faster, and easily observably faster much of the time. Certainly not 7 seconds slower than a single player in stages, especially that late in the game when you've had plenty of time to get your items set up.
Are you sure this is optimized?
Example: 32 seconds in, P1 both stops moving for a moment, then places a bomb at a crossroad instead of in the alcove and then has to wait further 2 extra spaces away for the explosion to finish. Both of those look really blatantly unoptimal and there are more small things as it goes on.
Edit: Single player is only marginally slower than you on that stage too, and over 5 seconds faster than you on stage 3.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suEeI5vJd0U
i thought this was the cheated run but it's not...stage 3 really went bad.
i can't really figure out what part exactly what you're talkin about but at 32 seconds p1 needs to explode the orange lamp as soon as possible,hence why it puts on the crossroad,regardless of distance he is from it.
You stop moving for a moment when you place THAT bomb, and the one after that should be not at the crossroads because it forces you back extra spaces.
Jumped to 10 minutes in and the remote clearly wasn't detonated as quickly as it could have been. Spot checked another comparison.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QM1Ki7WcbBQ&#t=6m28shttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXO6oEMl0RY&#t=15m28s
Single player is faster than yours again. You should look over his run and make sure that you're beating or at the very absolute least matching those times.
Are you sure this is optimized?
Example: 32 seconds in, P1 both stops moving for a moment, then places a bomb at a crossroad instead of in the alcove and then has to wait 2 extra spaces away for the explosion to finish. Both of those look really blatantly unoptimal and there are more small things as it goes on.
Edit: Single player is only marginally slower than you on that stage too, and about 7 seconds faster than you on stage 3.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suEeI5vJd0U
Not to confuse the matter worse, but does anyone remember the controversy surrounding a run (by FODA possibly?) that "beat" SMB1(J) using the minus world, which (invisibly) set a flag that is usually associated with beating the game.
The problem was that setting this flag without any of the visuals that would normally come with it made the run feel incomplete.
I kinda think it sets a bad precedent to accept that a game is beaten based on some internal value, and not something more visible.
None the less, voting yes. Note sure what the correct criteria is for "complete" here, but this feels like it passes to me.
This is pretty much why I voted no. To me, it fails to pass the smell test of whether it actually looks in any way shape or form like the ending, especially with the infinite loop preventing the ending itself from completing. The previous glitched run jumps to a point everyone easily recognizes as the ending sequence. This does not. It appears on the outside to be stuck in an infinite loop that only happens to include the "The End" image.
Jumping into the middle of the ending sequence and then the ending running to conclusion, okay. But I think it should actually execute (at least part of) the ending sequence in at least a way that a regular viewer would believe it to be the game's ending.
It seems a little weird to me that a run better than the current one in every way would be rejected and the worse one preserved. I understand the want to move to more accurate emulators, but maybe the line in the sand should be no backsliding along emulator accuracy (and don't use out of date ones period for games without runs yet/new branches) instead of don't use emulator X period.
Edit:
...If it doesn't even run on those, then I really can't see any reason why it'd be rejected for not being made on them.
Concrete example of something that loads part of the ending onto screen without actually calling the ending routine
http://tasvideos.org/1865M.html
In the case of A Boy And His Blob, though, the game was still going - you could still lose the game and you hadn't lost player control.
I wouldn't say that making the game call the "the end" image and then causing a soft crash or the game to hang to count and that would fulfill those criteria.
Does showing the "The End" picture on screen constitute completing the game?
You may as well ask if talking to Professor Oak without first beating your rival counts as completing the game.
I'm not quite sure I understand what you are trying to say.
Ostensibly there's a subroutine in the game for displaying the final picture. If this run simply glitches the game into jumping to that subroutine and then do nothing, does that constitute completing the game? (I'm not saying that's the only thing this run does. I'm asking that if that were the case, would it be in principle considered a game completion?)
Let's consider a slightly different situation: We glitch the game into running arbitrary code. We use that to write a small routine that reads the end screen data from the game ROM and display it on screen. Would that constitute "completing the game"? I think most people would agree that it wouldn't. It's simply showing one picture from the game's ROM data, nothing more.
Now, if instead of writing our own "dump-picture-onto-screen" routine and glitch the game into running it, we make the game simply glitch into jumping into its own "dump-the-end-picture-onto-screen" routine. Does that make much of a difference in the end?
I suppose that if the game itself considers the game as finished at this point (eg. if you save now, it would consider it a "game completed" save), it could be considered a valid completion. (A rather nondescript one, I might say, but still a technically valid completion.)
Concrete example of something that loads part of the ending onto screen without actually calling the ending routine
http://tasvideos.org/1865M.html
Can we implement a new site-wide rule against arguing about 100% definitions in submission threads?
If you care about these things, speak up in the game's thread /before/ the run is made. No one is going to redo a multi-hour run (e.g. the hotly disputed ChronoTrigger 100% that was recently published under a different name..) because you decided to chime in /after/ they put in months or years of work and had some problem with it.
100% definitions are inherently arbitrary, and each game's community needs to define what they care about on their own time, before work on runs is started. If you think you have some really compelling argument for why the consensus is wrong, bring it up in the game thread, and convince the people working on the next version of the run. In the mean time, be a little more gracious to the people putting in hundreds of hours to make high quality runs for your enjoyment, even if you can't figure out exactly why they made all the choices they made. They've probably thought about it more than you have.
Actually, when 100% is an actual category, it's usually pretty obvious. A distinct and limited set of collectable whatevers or ennumerated goals that can be readily measured. It honestly seems pretty obvious to me here too, and if you asked people whether or not buying the upgraded shield would be required, I'm pretty sure almost everyone would say yes.
I can easily see the argument for skipping the other things (although don't agree with it), even skipping maps and compasses, since the end result is Link at his full power with the entire inventory screen kitted out, but the shield's a pretty big omission. There's also a pretty solid consensus out there with what "All items/100%" for this game means without the need to come up with an alternative definition not involving collecting all the items.
http://www.gamefaqs.com/nes/563433-the-legend-of-zelda/faqs/48203http://zeldawiki.org/100%25_Completion#The_Legend_of_Zelda
Belated Edit:
Forgot it's Quest 2 that has the multiple ones, not quest 1.
What's more, the reason the shield isn't bought is because it can be lost, but bait can be 'lost' too. Extra bait is bought after the one time that you have to use it to be at '100%', so even the definition given isn't applied consistently.
Really? I mean really? Bringing my already accepted YI run into this discussion? I mean I totally didn't write a post about my improvement and I totally didn't write "This room is also the reason why I originally started making an improvement on this run, because you can clip the invisible wall on the right for one frame (like a walljump) and if you time it perfectly you can enter the door faster."
Yes. Really. Judges aren't perfect. All you needed to do there was copy/link that ten month old post and say "This is where I saved 4 frames." Dodging repeated questions just makes you look like you're hiding something.
Here, from reading the (original) submission message and initial comments, they distinctly gave the impression that you had improved it in some way other than a different emulator.
Being completely open about what you're doing is always the best policy.
No, this run would be faster, if not for the incorrect lag emulation in vba.
As per the above, no. It wouldn't.
Belated Edit:
There's this too, also obsoleting something on the basis of hearsay and a new emulator.
http://tasvideos.org/3881S.html
Did anybody actually see if what he says about there being four frames of improvement was actually true? People did ask in the thread for the improvements to be specified and they never were.
since when is it not allowed to use the strategy and ideas of the previous run? You guys should know, that this strategy is optimized like hell. It uses the minimum amount of pkm switches, it skips scrolling through rival names glitchy items. It has to manipulate only 2 bytes. I indeed have videos of other strats (skips to the rating without walking so you can end the movie when you close the menu) but they were slower just because this is so optimized.
Then are you admitting that you didn't do anything different besides using a different emulator and accounting for the lag differences?
I compared the two author comments notes.
Previous:
Manipulate TID to be 0x64D0
Switch 2nd for 10th
Switch 12th for 13th
Switch 11th for 13th
Item switch to move 0xD0
Switch 11th for 12th
Here:
Manipulate TID to be 0x64D0
Switch 7th for 10th
Switch 12th for 13th
Switch 11th for 13th
Item switch to move 0xD0
Switch 11th for 12th
Step 2 is the only difference and I'm not sure how it would save time. The rest as far as what the authors wrote is 100% identical between the two.
Emphatic no.
