Joined: 10/28/2013
Posts: 130
Location: United States
Was reminded of this glitch today, and surprised to see that there's still no published TAS making use of it. Would this potentially obsolete the current record-holder for this game, or is it deemed too akin to things like the SMB3 insta-win via DPCM?
Joined: 10/28/2013
Posts: 130
Location: United States
ais523 wrote:
In games from the era that TASvideos normally cares about, a search for the constant 0x41c64e6d (1103515245 in decimal) within the ROM is likely to find the RNG routine approximately half the time. Finding good constants for use in RNG algorithsm is hard, and 1103515245 has been known to be an acceptably good multiplier value for 32-bit RNGs for a long time.
[...]
For what it's worth, the most commonly seen 64-bit equivalent of 1103515245 is 6364136223846793005 (in hexadecimal, 0x5851f42d4c957f2d, or 2D 7F 95 4C 2D F4 51 58 when its bytes are reversed), but this is a much rarer number than its 32-bit counterpart
Very interesting, thanks. What properties of these numbers make them so effective as RNG seeds? Is it something about how they respond to bitshifting operations and XORs, or something else?
Joined: 10/28/2013
Posts: 130
Location: United States
Wipeoutjack7 wrote:
Not sure why, but when you initially turn on the game/finish the 9 holes, all that you'll see is the first hole rotating through different color palettes. You can still move your putter around, but it's impossible to hit the ball.
That's a pretty standard feature in earlier Atari 2600 games: after the game's end state is reached, a level remains on screen (be it the first or last), and the console cycles through different color combinations to prevent burn-in. Sometimes it lets you keep moving around or controlling your character in some way, sometimes not, but meaningful gameplay is always disabled.
Joined: 10/28/2013
Posts: 130
Location: United States
Bloopiero wrote:
Sorry if this is a bit of a stupid question, but I don't quite understand what you mean by "the known secret trick to enable a player to move 2x faster, without any encounters on the field." I don't see it mentioned anywhere else in the submission, unless I'm missing something...
I was curious about this too. GameFAQs lists it as a cheat code:
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/nes/578487-minelvaton-saga-ragon-no-fukkatsu/cheats
"At the title screen, press Up, Up, Down, Left, A, Left, Right, Down, Down, B and press Start. If done right, the screen should change to black. Now start your game and press Start to enable fast movement and Select to disable it. This cheat, when enabled, will also disable any random encounter in any area - however, keep in mind that this is strictly for random encounters."
Joined: 10/28/2013
Posts: 130
Location: United States
BoursinBurger wrote:
1. I see lots of viewfinder hunting around for planets / space stations / enemies upon entering a sector. This is a TAS - you should know exactly where the objects of interest are, and be accelerating toward them immediately upon arrival.
2. Landing on planets and docking at space stations is done extremely slowly. You should be accelerating towards these objects at a much faster rate and only cutting speed right before the landing/docking procedure begins so you don't overshoot them.
3. Same deal with the combat. It looks like these are all played in realtime - I see lots of missed shots and inattention to speed and direction. Are shields necessary? Can you manipulate fights so you don't need to turn them on?
4. Have you timed the game without getting the hyper drive and/or hyper laser? Visiting the two planets and then a space station for refueling takes up 6 minutes of your run.
On 1., my only question would be if the game deliberately forces a certain amount of viewfinding on the player before it spawns the object in question. Do we know for sure how the planets/stations spawn?
2., I noticed that as well (and I do accelerate in my own real-time runs of this game), but it also burns fuel faster, and that's always going to be a hard limit on optimizing this game.
On 3., I agree, more optimization is almost certainly possible, and seeing that issue makes me wonder about #1 and #2. Difficult to unpack the exact details of how collision detection works in this game; I don't envy the task.
On 4., definitely worth it in real-time play, but I agree -- unless the game cheats massively under the hood, it should be possible to handle combat without benefit of super-laser. Hyperdrive saves 5-10 seconds every time you use it, but I doubt that adds up to the time lost in getting it.
Joined: 10/28/2013
Posts: 130
Location: United States
theripper999 wrote:
Also when approaching planets it looks like you are adjusting while approaching. I would think approaching in a straight line would be more optimal. Does that even matter though in this game?
It's not clear to me what governs the location of the planet in (pseudo) 3D space when you warp to its sector, i.e. whether the game always forces you to fish around to find it (I don't think it does).
You do have to reduce your speed to two bars in order to land, but a more aggressive approach speed might be possible (i.e. accelerating and then decelerating) unless it's been ruled out for fuel reasons.
Joined: 10/28/2013
Posts: 130
Location: United States
Has anyone looked at Ys II: Ancient Ys Vanished - The Final Chapter?
I was playing the game recently and got knocked out of bounds in one area -- hit by the enemy, which bypassed an exit at the bottom of the screen -- though I wasn't able to pull off any exploits with it.
Joined: 10/28/2013
Posts: 130
Location: United States
What's happening with the part at 1:59 where the screen flashes, two rows of Goldams walk down the right side of the screen, and the music starts playing at double speed? I don't remember ever seeing that before, and can't find anything about it -- is it exclusive to the Japanese release?
Joined: 10/28/2013
Posts: 130
Location: United States
Yep, Chack'n Pop has an ending in the arcade and on the SG-1000, but the Famicom version just loops with increased difficulty. A real shame.
(I made it to Maze 12 or so earlier this year, but had no interest in going any further to investigate the second loop -- the first one was hard enough.)
Oh hey, that's pretty cool! Thanks for posting that -- I wonder what the underlying mechanic is? -- and for introducing me to that Twitch streamer (I track projects like those, i.e. ones trying to beat every game in a system's library).
Joined: 10/28/2013
Posts: 130
Location: United States
DrD2k9 wrote:
Is there a reason you chose 1 Player instead of 2 Players?
I'm not super familiar with the arcade version, but I'm guessing running 2 players co-op would yield a faster overall run and may offer more opportunity to be entertaining.
The slowdown in this game is so severe, though -- unless the game makes other changes to compensate (and my memory is that it doesn't), then the second player's mere presence will slow everything to an even slower crawl.
Joined: 10/28/2013
Posts: 130
Location: United States
Thanks for your reply, ThunderAxe31.
ThunderAxe31 wrote:
No one ever said Math Blaster doesn't contain actual gameplay. The problem for this game is that the educational part comes before the gaming one, that is forcing the player to execute an activity that has nothing to do with shooting and platforming and specifically doing it in an educational way. On the other hand, it makes just sense for some kind of strategic games to require you to do calculations, because it's relative to that gaming ambiance and it's not specifically crafted in order to teach any school subject to the player.
Why, then, is Math Blaster rejected but Oregon Trail and Carmen Sandiego accepted? They both fail the test of "forcing the player to execute an activity" that's subservient to the educational goals of the game.
ThunderAxe31 wrote:
I already linked the Vault rules page in my judgement notes, that is the place where TASers are supposed to learn about which games and which game goals could be accepted and which not; if that's not enough, everyone is still free to ask if a specific game title could be potentially accepted for Vault, by posting in this thread or contacting a judge privately via PM, IRC or Discord.
Unfortunately, the Vault rules page only offers examples, switches back and forth between terms ("proper" vs. "serious"), and doesn't define exactly what constitutes "seriousness" or "non-seriousness" in a game (the word "serious" only shows up twice on that page).
When definitions are codified as part of a set of rules, their value is that they allow others to hold us accountable to that definition, to lay bare the principles beneath the rules, and to require us to abide by the defined rules whether or not we approve of the outcome that results. That's the whole point: otherwise they're just guidelines.
Joined: 10/28/2013
Posts: 130
Location: United States
ThunderAxe31 wrote:
We don't care about what a casual watcher may think or not think by watching the encode of a game they aren't familiar of; what we care about is what the game played actually *is*.
If this Math Blaster run reaches the end of the game in the shortest amount of time possible, and there's active and dynamic gameplay happening onscreen and well-tuned manipulation "under the hood", then aren't both casual viewers and specialist audiences well-served by this run?
ThunderAxe31 wrote:
If a game has the mandatory requirement to do a lot of Math, we consider it a non-serious game, regardless of what it could seem for someone that never played it.
Plenty of games intended as entertainment (not edutainment) require doing lots of math. Most are on computer, but a game like Artillery Duel on the Atari 2600 is literally about calculating angles, power and nothing else -- there's no action/dexterity component. Other examples include space travel and rocketry simulators (and some RPGs come pretty damn close). Perhaps most of those don't have enough going onscreen to justify a TAS as a watched experience; Math Blaster, however, clearly does.
What I suspect you really mean is if the game forces you to solve math problems as a central gameplay element and the intent of the game is to teach math, it's a non-serious game. But -- if that's a correct gloss of your stance -- I don't think even that is a coherent standard, or that any judging criteria attempting to be objective should include "intent" as a criterion. The Oregon Trail's intent is didactic/pedagogical; so is Carmen Sandiego. Both are on this site.
Meanwhile, Math Blaster's gameplay may involve solving math problems, but I'd argue that it doesn't consist of solving math problems: it consists of shooting, platforming, etc. If you can't see the difference and want a game that consists of solving math problems, the Apple II library has plenty of examples where you just type in the answer and that's all you do.
Also, once again, let me ask: where are "serious" and "non-serious" defined on this site? If these are matters of policy, shouldn't they be spelled out explicitly, so that anyone can know in advance where a given submission will stand? Isn't that what rules are for -- to ensure accountability for all parties?
I know it's irritating to have your judgment questioned. Please understand that this is a sincere response to a perceived lack of clarity or consistency on certain points, and to evidence that seems to contradict claims being made.
Joined: 10/28/2013
Posts: 130
Location: United States
While I appreciate the IPS patch, I don't believe you're arguing in good faith here.
As I'm sure you realize, my point is, if the person watching the run couldn't see the math elements, they'd see what appeared to them to be a standard (if uninspired) space cockpit shooter, then a kind of platformer, etc. And those events are actually being controlled by player input, so their impression -- of a game being played -- would be correct.
Joined: 10/28/2013
Posts: 130
Location: United States
Math Blaster clearly has far more "actual gameplay" than the currently-published Carmen Sandiego run. The latter is a hell of a technical achievement (i.e. completely non-trivial), but the game itself is the absolute quintessence of edutainment, with no direct entertainment value. Meanwhile, Math Blaster is an action-oriented game with a clear win condition, traditional mechanics (space shooter, etc.), and far shorter duration.
So if the grounds are "Does the game offer actual gameplay?", I don't understand how Carmen Sandiego gets a yes and Math Blaster a no. One could blur out all the math elements in Math Blaster and still have coherent gameplay.
All this stuff about intuiting the designers' ultimate intent is a canard: how can one possibly do that? It takes something that should be cut-and-dried and makes it metaphysical. All you need to know is whether there's meaningful gameplay. In Sesame Street 123, there basically isn't; in Math Blaster, there is.
BTW is there a place where "serious/non-serious game" is defined? One of the reasons I said these discussions are getting "legalistic" is that we have all these rules being cited, yet no clarity on the exact meaning of certain terms, nor on whether the rules cut both ways: to put it bluntly, can the staff be forced to approve a run they vehemently dislike because it fulfills the letter of the rules?