Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(21)
Joined: 6/2/2011
Posts: 35
Location: Chicago, IL
Definite no vote. I wouldn't even publish this to the vault; I think it's insulting to all the creative, time-consuming glitchfests that have been created and published, and
why even put this in the vault when there's so many great MK published runs?
If at first you don't succeed, load your savestate and try again
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(21)
Joined: 6/2/2011
Posts: 35
Location: Chicago, IL
dwangoAC wrote:
I'd like to get this up on YouTube but the current encode doesn't have a disclaimer and I'm not sure how best to convert creaothceann's encode (or if it would even be appropriate for me to rework that encode rather than creating my own - it feels dirty, like I'm taking credit for someone else's work).
You're the author; I wouldn't worry about anyone being offended for stealing "someone else's work" lol
If at first you don't succeed, load your savestate and try again
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(21)
Joined: 6/2/2011
Posts: 35
Location: Chicago, IL
heldtogetherwithtape wrote:
nmaster64 wrote:
This gives me an idea, but how much it would end up being used. Perhaps instead of having the author of the TAS make the verification movie for "newgame+" type runs, community members that don't have interests in making TASes of games, but are enjoy playing the games could make verification movies for TASers that wish to focus more on the actual run based on an otherwise obtained savestate? I know not everyone on the site TASes, but it would be one way that people that want to contribute more could do so.
That's actually a really good idea, and it kind of goes along with what I already said that we will be using generally accepted savestates, and let's more devoted TASers focus on that. Then, verification movies can be made and the savestates that are created after completion of the movie can be used by anyone wishing to TAS a newgame+. I like this idea a lot.
Twelvepack wrote:
The problem that I have is that I think that the whole premise of this run (as well as the category that accepting it would create) is against the spirit of what a time run is.
So /agree with everyone who suggested that the completion time include the time required to make the other save file.
Sorry, Twelvepack, but I think you're 100% wrong because by your logic then this run: (http://tasvideos.org/1205M.html) among others, would have to include the other save file time, which is absolutely ludicrous IMO. The fact that the newgame+ uses SRAM to glitch to the endgame of a different file is irrelevant in the same way that dungeons in the Legend of Zelda have different layouts in the 2nd quest as they do in the first quest.
Edit: Basically, it's irrelevant how exactly the glitch in the newgame+ file works (by accessing saved data); it's only relevant that the glitch exists solely in the newgame+ file, and it must be active in order to complete the game. If you are against newgame+ runs as a rule, then that's a completely separate issue.
If at first you don't succeed, load your savestate and try again
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(21)
Joined: 6/2/2011
Posts: 35
Location: Chicago, IL
Guga wrote:
TrenchAce wrote:
Edit: Perhaps the site rules should be changed so that in newgame+ runs, generally accepted-as-legit savestate files can be used as opposed to verification files for the convenience of the runner, so that instead of wasting valuable time spending hours making a file that's basically going to be wasted and probably not even watched, the runner can focus on optimization of the actual newgame+ run. Swordless's OoT submission has already caused a change to site rules; why not this time?!
Do you want us to change the rules because Swordless is lazy?
touché, haha. But Swordless does raise a good point, because it's definitely a huge waste of time if other people can verify that it is indeed a valid savestate. I don't see any good reason why it shouldn't be considered for acceptance, besides this site's incredibly subjective rules that it already lives by and are continually changing anyways as better ways and methods are being discovered.
If at first you don't succeed, load your savestate and try again
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(21)
Joined: 6/2/2011
Posts: 35
Location: Chicago, IL
Swordless Link wrote:
The reason I didn't provide the other movie file is because I didn't feel like making one when I can easily just grab a savefile that's already available that has the necessary criteria for the run already met. It's just a waste of my time and I doubt it'd be rejected for that, anyway, especially since Nahoc knows this game well and has already stated in IRC that he knows the savefile is legit.
Good enough for me. Also, the category has been changed to my liking. Easy yes vote now.
Edit: Perhaps the site rules should be changed so that in newgame+ runs, generally accepted-as-legit savestate files can be used as opposed to verification files for the convenience of the runner, so that instead of wasting valuable time spending hours making a file that's basically going to be wasted and probably not even watched, the runner can focus on optimization of the actual newgame+ run. Swordless's OoT submission has already caused a change to site rules; why not this time?!
If at first you don't succeed, load your savestate and try again
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(21)
Joined: 6/2/2011
Posts: 35
Location: Chicago, IL
I agree with some of what ais523 said. Holding my vote for now, but if the title said "newgame+" or "newgame+ glitched", I'd actually be 100% behind it, since it's no different IMO than other runs that do "newgame+".
Also, contrary to popular argument on this thread, it IS well within site rules, as long as a verification file is created first. So I would vote yes as long as the verification file is uploaded at least in the submission text (see submission #2113).
FROM THE MOVIE RULES PAGE:
"We do not allow save-anchored movies...
However, there are certain games with unlockable modes, second quests, or other things of interest that can only be accessed if a save file (or an otherwise "dirty" SRAM) is present. If you really wish to submit a movie made on such a mode, you will need a verification movie made and provided alongside it. Any input file that starts from power-on (for example, a previously submitted movie for that game) and creates the exact circumstances for your submission to sync will generally do.
...
"In any case, ensure a run of your unlocked mode provides meaningful content over a fresh game. For example, if the unlocked mode features all new bosses, but your run triggers the endgame sequence before meeting any of them, and this same glitch exists in a fresh game as well, then there is no benefit to unlocking this mode."
This is pretty clear to me that a glitch that requires a newgame+ file in order to be done is completely acceptable. But again, SL, you have to at least link to the verification file.
If at first you don't succeed, load your savestate and try again
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(21)
Joined: 6/2/2011
Posts: 35
Location: Chicago, IL
"Here we start setting up the new Sequence Break in Ganon's Tower. Shooting down the ladder in the Slingshot Room sets a certain flag. By doing the Wrong Warp later on this flag is transfered over to Ganon's Castle, where it opens the very last door of the Castle Escape."
How you people figure this shit out is beyond me.
If at first you don't succeed, load your savestate and try again
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(21)
Joined: 6/2/2011
Posts: 35
Location: Chicago, IL
No vote. If this gets published, then worldwide productivity and GDP's everywhere will plummet, as too much time is wasted watching and re-watching this video, and the economy is bad enough!
j/k of course. A worsened economy is most DEFINITELY worth this being published.
If at first you don't succeed, load your savestate and try again
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(21)
Joined: 6/2/2011
Posts: 35
Location: Chicago, IL
Derakon wrote:
During the landing sequence, why do you have to maintain such a slow speed for so long? Couldn't you approach the carrier faster and then slow down right near the end?
Some explanation of the mechanics of the missions might be nice too. As far as I can tell, you just fly out in an arbitrary direction, destroy targets as they pop in front of you, and eventually go down to land again; does the game not track your X/Y position at all?
Great questions! See edits in the description.
Regarding the specific frame by frame mechanics, are you really gonna make me do that? I'll only waste more time on this shitty game if I get more requests, since I made this a while ago and forgot the specifics.
If at first you don't succeed, load your savestate and try again
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(21)
Joined: 6/2/2011
Posts: 35
Location: Chicago, IL
CoolKirby wrote:
Hm, let's apply E.T. Yes voters' logic: "So short it's entertaining. Sure it's a bad game, but it's also infamous, and will draw so many people to the site. Bad game does not equal bad game choice. Yes vote for the reasons provided."
Now let's see how this one's judged, since it's basically the same situation as the E.T. run.
The difference is that E.T. is most-decidedly infamous, and is entertaining due to its infamy alone - just like Cheetahmen; it's like having so many categories of runs in SMB1, just because of what game it is (ie min-presses, no "B" button, etc), when those categories in most other games would not be accepted.
Superman on Atari, on the other hand, is a game that very few people know about, so the non-entertaining run just ends up being pointless when all is said and done. So yes the rules apply to different games in a way that is a bit subjective, but exceptions for very well-known games can and should be made for the entertainment of both casual and more frequent gaming fans.
Therefore, I vote no for this game, even though I voted yes on E.T.
If at first you don't succeed, load your savestate and try again
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(21)
Joined: 6/2/2011
Posts: 35
Location: Chicago, IL
DarkKobold wrote:
I suffered as a child to play this. Spent hours on it. Never once beat it.
Same goes for me. Except not only did I never beat it, I never had the faintest idea wth I was supposed to do! Now King Tutankhamun on the other hand, was one HELLUVA game for Atari.
Voting meh since I'm now more aware of the goals of the game and I know about it, but I can also see how someone might think it's the most boring run of all time.
If at first you don't succeed, load your savestate and try again
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(21)
Joined: 6/2/2011
Posts: 35
Location: Chicago, IL
CtrlAltDestroy wrote:
Atari support is awesome. Is there support yet for the wheel controller (supported by Breakout, Kaboom!, and so on) via mouse, and if not, is it planned?
One of the coolest TASes ever would be someone doing a superplay of Warlords with 4 controllers! Who wants to be the ambitious one to take on that task when wheel support is added?
If at first you don't succeed, load your savestate and try again
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(21)
Joined: 6/2/2011
Posts: 35
Location: Chicago, IL
I have to admit, I was iffy about the goal before I saw the vid. But after watching, I can say that I was thoroughly entertained by the routes took to avoid/play around with enemies. This is a well-made TAS. Yes vote
PS I especially like that you don't take damage from the crows which would end up killing them!
If at first you don't succeed, load your savestate and try again
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(21)
Joined: 6/2/2011
Posts: 35
Location: Chicago, IL
Voting meh. Unfortunately, I found the RTS far more entertaining, which is a bad thing. Not voting no though, because even though I agree with most of what nitrogenesis said for why it should be rejected, I also agree that it is probably far more entertaining for people who know the game.
Plus, I've personally submitted Top Gun NES in the past (under a different gamertag), so I can't talk about boring runs :)
If at first you don't succeed, load your savestate and try again
Mod edit: resized.