Joined: 5/2/2006
Posts: 1020
Location: Boulder, CO
What about glitches that involve running some machine code that the runner has limited or no control over? This is often the case for runs labeled "skips to credits".
It is similar to ACE because the runner might be executing code that is not intended to be part of the code of the game, but it is unlike ACE because the code being executed might not be arbitrary at all-- in fact the runner's control over what code is run might even be fairly limited.
Where does heavily glitched end and ACE begin?
Joined: 5/2/2006
Posts: 1020
Location: Boulder, CO
I realize that this has been said may times before in many different ways, but here it goes:
It is hopeless to define a movie by what it does (such as the tag "uses memory corruption"). Instead they should be defined by what they do not do, such as "no warps" or "no x glitch".
Every single movie could be cleanly and unambiguously labeled, and there would be no doubt what category a run belongs to, because all you would need to ask is "does it do any of the things that this branch does not allow?"
An example: imagine some crazy memory corruption glitch allowed SMB1 to be beaten in 8 seconds. The new any% run would use this glitch to have an overall time of 8 seconds. The current ~5 min run that does not do this could be (at the discretion of the site and judges) moved to a branch that is labeled "no memory corruption".
No ambiguity, no wierd distinctions like the "11 exit" run where a newer faster movie that meets the goals is inexplicably disqualified from a branch who's goals it meets.
Joined: 5/2/2006
Posts: 1020
Location: Boulder, CO
Late to the party, but I cast my vote for any% and "no x glitch" because it is the only scheme suggested here that would prevent confusion with regards to if one movie obsoletes another.
"glitched" does not do this because the trend for runs like the "11 exit" run seems to be that the runs uses some game breaking glitches, but not others, and its definition just changes in such a way that newer, glitchier runs aren't allowed to compete.
So I realize that this is already largely decided, and that this post is mostly reiterating what has been posted already, but I just wanted to say my piece.
Joined: 5/2/2006
Posts: 1020
Location: Boulder, CO
Why is it important that the branch exclude this run?
More importantly, why should the branch include the current run marked as "11 exits"? If the goal is for the "11 exit" branch is to show the 'normal' route, why should it allow severe glitches that make the run feel completely unlike a normal run?
Joined: 5/2/2006
Posts: 1020
Location: Boulder, CO
If it were up to me, I would have no '11 exit' branch at all, and would have the branches for this game be as follows:
1. any%
2. glichless any%
3. glichless 100% (96 exit)
Glichless any% would probably happen to be 11 exits, but there is no reason to enforce 11 exits as a goal when it comes about a a consequence of the run being glichless.
this is the same way that 16 star SM64 runs stopped making sense. the goal there would have had to have been something like "no glitching through walls in the basement unless you use MIPS". This is obviously an absurd category for a branch, so we made the right call in not allowing it.
The bottom line is that any run that allows heavy glitch abuse will do more than take a free win on Iggy's castle.
Tl;DR -- I don't think 11 exits makes sense as a branch, but if we keep it, this should obsolete the previous one.
Joined: 5/2/2006
Posts: 1020
Location: Boulder, CO
No problem so far.
The problem is not that this run was assigned to the '11 exit' branch, the problem, if anything, is that '11 exits' is a bad concept for a branch. Why not just pick 11 levels (not even including bowser's castle) then glitch to the credits? It would meet the requirements of the branch.
Pick a set of goals such that the run that completes those goals is entertaining to watch, not the other way around. (which would be finding an entertaining run and changing the goals so that nothing can ever obsolete it)
Anyway, whatever the outcome of the publication for this tas, thanks to masterjun for making it. You have done some fun and amazing things to this game.
Joined: 5/2/2006
Posts: 1020
Location: Boulder, CO
So my bullshit detector is on the fritz, so I'm not sure how much of this thread is serious.
Either way, this version of "11 exits" with heavy glitch abuse is faster than the published "11 exits" with heavy glitch abuse, so go-go gadget publication.
Joined: 5/2/2006
Posts: 1020
Location: Boulder, CO
Broncos! This is going to be a great game. Apparently the first time that (when measured by yards gained/allowed) that the #1 offense plays the #1 defense in the Super Bowl.
But yea. Go Broncos.
Joined: 5/2/2006
Posts: 1020
Location: Boulder, CO
I think you may have misunderstood.
His point is that the movie he linked is any%, and the one you linked should be categorized "glichless any%" or something similar. The movie with extra rules (i.e. glichless) is the one that should get the adjectives attached to it, not the pure any% movies.
Joined: 5/2/2006
Posts: 1020
Location: Boulder, CO
Why all zeros?
Why pick this initial state over another? What criteria should be used to determine if an initial state is a valid choice?
I only ask to point out that the choice is arbitrary. If the rule should be that the initial state should be close to what a real console might have, then that is reasonable. If the rule should be that you can do whatever you want, that is reasonable too. But choosing one in particular with no criteria at all is not a reasonable rule.
Joined: 5/2/2006
Posts: 1020
Location: Boulder, CO
Let me break it down then: What we want to emulate an unmodified ROM, and we want the emulator to work like a console does in real life.
The problem is, in real life, the initial state of some memory is not predictable, so the question becomes "what should its initial state be?"
"Just showing the end credits" is not in question, as there is no initial memory state that will cause that to happen.
Anyway, my vote is to just allow whatever. It would be too hard to prove that any initial state in particular is possible, so go nuts.
Joined: 5/2/2006
Posts: 1020
Location: Boulder, CO
So let me get this straight: You have a friend who lives several states away, and you have not been able to get a hold of this friend for 22 hours?
Here is some advice:
If you think that this person might be in danger for some reason, call the police.
If your friend is having a problem with their phone and computer, get a grip. They will call back once they get it sorted out.
Also--
You are coming off as a crazy person. Make sure that you take a second to look at the situation before you do anything rash. Like staying up all night over a dropped phone call.
Joined: 5/2/2006
Posts: 1020
Location: Boulder, CO
Well put.
Another especially pointless video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FXoXSHHEj0
three seconds of odd looking game play, and a score screen. He doesn't even bother to show the whole last race or anything, so I can't imagine how this video would hold any interest for anyone. what a waste of 16 seconds.
Joined: 5/2/2006
Posts: 1020
Location: Boulder, CO
The fact that he knew to hit gannon at the bottom of the screen the one time he spawned there makes this feel like a dead giveaway.
No way to be sure, but