I have reported this bug here, endrift looked into it and later posted about it on his site. But as far as I'm aware, it never got fixed. This bug occurs not only on Bizhawk but on pretty much every emulator.
That bug seems to be quite tricky to fix.
MUGG wrote:
I'm glad you submitted your run!
Thanks. I am glad that I managed to improve the Walrus fight.
<klmz> it reminds me of that people used to keep quoting adelikat's IRC statements in the old good days
<adelikat> no doubt
<adelikat> klmz, they still do
No, I haven't got one. Such situation may come true sometime in the future though.
<klmz> it reminds me of that people used to keep quoting adelikat's IRC statements in the old good days
<adelikat> no doubt
<adelikat> klmz, they still do
So "major skip glitch" = "game end glitch" + "warp glitch"? It would be weird to me that "glitching-warping to the end" is not a "warp glitch".
EDIT: And then hypothetically:
* You skip a large chunk of levels with a double-damage-boosting trick in midair, and it's not a "warp glitch".
* Later you start over and skip the same large chunk of levels by the same with a double-damage-boosting trick in midair, this time using a glitched out healing item between the two boosts to survive from dying due to skipping an armor earlier in the game, and now it's a "warp glitch".
That would sound kind of... inconsistent (my vocabulary is limited).
<klmz> it reminds me of that people used to keep quoting adelikat's IRC statements in the old good days
<adelikat> no doubt
<adelikat> klmz, they still do
No, it still obsoletes klmz's TAS, because the main goal is beating the game as fast as possible, not doing it in a certain way. Also, we're in Vault territory, for which only two branches are allowed unless the game features extra modes, which is completely unrelated to the ending possibilities. So only fastest completion and best ending are allowed for Vault publications for this game, and this run still counts as Vault fastest completion.
Hold on. Does it mean that we can accept "bad endings" aiming for the Vault publications for games that currently only have "good endings" aiming for Moon publications?
EDIT: Examples are most Metroidvania Castlevania games.
<klmz> it reminds me of that people used to keep quoting adelikat's IRC statements in the old good days
<adelikat> no doubt
<adelikat> klmz, they still do
klmz, what definition of "warp" are you using, and where does that definition come from?
That Italic text "a leap from a point in the game space to a logically disconnected one". It's my own definition. Some other definitions like this (Wikipedia) seem less appropriate (no restrictions on the "two locations" so what if they are contiguous?).
EDIT: Honestly I have to admit that in video games every movement is discrete and can be considered a micro-warp per frame. But then the point of the "warp" label would be lost. We have to somehow draw a line.
<klmz> it reminds me of that people used to keep quoting adelikat's IRC statements in the old good days
<adelikat> no doubt
<adelikat> klmz, they still do
There were still small things to investigate. For now I haven't ensured that the luck manipulation in some rooms are done perfectly.
<klmz> it reminds me of that people used to keep quoting adelikat's IRC statements in the old good days
<adelikat> no doubt
<adelikat> klmz, they still do
I think I was confused by the movie description, it says "allowing the player to warp directly to Dracula". However, "warp glitch" describes any way to get into later in-game point in a moment, warping around the map at the light speed delivers you to such points, so I think the branch is correct.
While it's very fast (though actually less than 1 screen-height per frame) moving through the long shaft room, it's completed in more than one frame and is slowing down in the procedure, and its trace is even visible to the watcher, which is contrary to the daily impression of "light speed" that light travelling any distance should arrive instantaneously before its trace can be observed.
And to skip into later in-game point is a sequence-break/major-skip, but unnecessarily a warp. Such skips are just ignoring obstructs in the path of the movements, but not a leap from a point in the game space to a logically disconnected one e.g. from one level to another.
Examples:
* [2420] NES King Kong 2: Ikari no Megaton Punch by max12187566 in 02:58.07: skips most of the game but is not (described as) "warped". BTW the previous movie should have the " Major skip glitch" label too.
* [3653] SNES Super Metroid by Sniq in 35:58.31: I have no idea about the weird Moonfall/Superjump things abused in this run, but at least they don't put this movie on a "warp glitch" branch.
<klmz> it reminds me of that people used to keep quoting adelikat's IRC statements in the old good days
<adelikat> no doubt
<adelikat> klmz, they still do
By the way, why didn't you include the BIOS screen? It's officially supported in the latest BizHawk release. It would probably be possible to easily resync it on it.
It might be a bit off topic, but why should the BIOS screen be included? The BIOS screen is not part of the game software.
Any runs that use a hard reset sequence would also be "faster" than a real time run, due to not having to play the BIOS. Of course, this run doesn't use it, but I would count personally for consistency to what happens on actual console.
Aren't real time runs always ignoring the BIOS splash, and even the intro, tile screen an loading time? We never include the "host system booting" part in Windows TASes.
<klmz> it reminds me of that people used to keep quoting adelikat's IRC statements in the old good days
<adelikat> no doubt
<adelikat> klmz, they still do
Bizhawk had an emulation bug in the sea level. I haven't checked since then.
<klmz> it reminds me of that people used to keep quoting adelikat's IRC statements in the old good days
<adelikat> no doubt
<adelikat> klmz, they still do
Link to videohttps://www.speedrun.com/aos/guide/aizon
A faster way to activate the debug menu via glitching has been found. You just need to access the shop to do it. I wonder if this is helpful for any% with warps.
The good old 0HP glitch is still faster, at least for TASes.
And that input was originally worked out and posted in Youtube comments, by me. ;-)
By the way, there has been memory-corrupting ways to beat this game without even fighting Chaos. I made one last year but haven't decided to submit it.
<klmz> it reminds me of that people used to keep quoting adelikat's IRC statements in the old good days
<adelikat> no doubt
<adelikat> klmz, they still do
* The DSS sumoning glitch is not a warp. It is just a high-speed movement that ignores any obstruct in the path. You can tell this with frame-advance, memory watch and/or just the exploration status (colorization) of the in-game map.
* Neither are the OoB room-transitions using the DSS sumoning warp glitches. These normal room exits are always working just as expected, in-bound (see below). It's the DSS sumoning glitch that catapults the character out of bound.
* There are indeed glitched warping spots in this game but they are all located in a particaular room in the Arena Area, and this run has nothing to do with them.
Yeah, you can safely assume that I am an expert of this game. ;-)
<klmz> it reminds me of that people used to keep quoting adelikat's IRC statements in the old good days
<adelikat> no doubt
<adelikat> klmz, they still do
By the way, why didn't you include the BIOS screen? It's officially supported in the latest BizHawk release. It would probably be possible to easily resync it on it.
It might be a bit off topic, but why should the BIOS screen be included? The BIOS screen is not part of the game software.
<klmz> it reminds me of that people used to keep quoting adelikat's IRC statements in the old good days
<adelikat> no doubt
<adelikat> klmz, they still do
The hypothetical run you propose is not eligible for the Vault, because it is clearly not the fastest Any% or 100% run. The run is eligible for the other tiers only if people find it entertaining. It's hard to estimate if they will, but it seems to me that short GEG runs are usually preferred over longer ones. So unless your GEG is particularly unique or impressive, I'm going to say "most likely not". IANAJ.
<klmz> it reminds me of that people used to keep quoting adelikat's IRC statements in the old good days
<adelikat> no doubt
<adelikat> klmz, they still do
This is a adventure "platformer" game that basically has the plot of Titanic, but came out several years earlier.
It is more likely that the game was inspired by the The Poseidon Adventure movie or the original novel which the movie was based on.
The bad ending of Jeffrey is one of the worst endings in the game (maybe defeated by Luke's). But well, since we accept some other bad-ending runs for Vault.
<klmz> it reminds me of that people used to keep quoting adelikat's IRC statements in the old good days
<adelikat> no doubt
<adelikat> klmz, they still do
Both are slower than the strategy implemented in my run, but thanks anyways. I use only uncharged shots to help adjust the movement of the broom in order to stick my fire power onto the boss, which saves about 12.5 seconds from the published run.
My current run in 12:18.63 (FCEUX's timing). Good thing is that most known glitches found places in the run.
<klmz> it reminds me of that people used to keep quoting adelikat's IRC statements in the old good days
<adelikat> no doubt
<adelikat> klmz, they still do
That "major skip (glitch)" (which "game end glitch" could/should be) term in different senses is probably responsible for the confusion and debate in this thread. I haven't got ideas on how to improve the usage of this term on published movies yet.
However, while I do think "game end glitch" can be so significant in skipping contents of the game that it is considered a "major skip in gameplay's sense", I don't think the definition of "game end glitch" should be bound to that "major skip in time-attacking's sense". A "game end" is a game end, a "glitch" is a glitch. Neither "game end" nor "glitch" suggests relationship with "saving majority of time over an (existing) speedrun without using it". If such a concept (in time-attacking's sense) is needed, a different term should be used instead.
The question will a "game end glitch" run be accepted when there exists a faster run that doesn't use it makes sense only if the definition of "game end glitch" is not bound to "major skip in time-attacking's sense". I hope it is clarified now.
For runs like "Stage -3" of SMB2j and "glitched Ending D" of Clock Tower, it seems to me that the games run into "bogus" endings that happen to resemble some working normal endings. And it might also be the case for some other debated "game end glitch" runs. It is a slippery slope for definition of a game ending and I haven't got any good ideas on this matter either.
<klmz> it reminds me of that people used to keep quoting adelikat's IRC statements in the old good days
<adelikat> no doubt
<adelikat> klmz, they still do
<klmz> it reminds me of that people used to keep quoting adelikat's IRC statements in the old good days
<adelikat> no doubt
<adelikat> klmz, they still do
"GO warp" is used in several levels. If you make a full use of it, your time will be ~3 minutes. If you completely avoid it, your time will be ~13 minutes. If you only use it in the final level, you're being sub-optimal, as each glitch and trick should be used to its full speedrun potential, unless throttling that potential is considered entertaining enough for a yet another branch, or a more entertaining application within the same branch.
You can have speed-entertainment trade offs slowing you down within the same branch, or you can use the same setup to skip less than possible within a separate branch.
Whether we can agree on the range of the impact of the "GO warp" in Contra 3, my Post #451896 is unaffected by this, and the main points of other posts regarding the Clock Tower run saving more time stay the same either way.
EDIT: In case you are wondering why the warp glitch in Little Samson doesn't cut the "majority" of a "non-glitch-warped" run like that in Contra 3, well, it is primarily because there are 4 unskippable non-boss stages and 18 unskippable bosses in Little Samson, both of which are much larger in number than those in Contra 3.
<klmz> it reminds me of that people used to keep quoting adelikat's IRC statements in the old good days
<adelikat> no doubt
<adelikat> klmz, they still do
as the numbers indicate, the "game end glitch" itself resulted from the "GO warp" in Contra 3 saves only ~3 minutes in the last stage
This is what I don't get.
AFAIK, you can use "GO warp" before the last stage, and then complele it as usual, or play normally till the last stage and then use the "GO warp" to glitch to the ending. So unless I am wrong about any of these, only the last application of the "GO warp" has direct relationship to the "game end glitch", and it (the last application of the "GO warp") just makes the last stage ~3 minutes shorter compared to a run without it.
I am indeed ignoring resource management here. I am not certain that if there could be unseen problems in such a theoritical "glitch-warped-but-normal-gameplay-ending" run that would invalidate my conjectures on this.
<klmz> it reminds me of that people used to keep quoting adelikat's IRC statements in the old good days
<adelikat> no doubt
<adelikat> klmz, they still do
I don't understand what you're trying to ask, but the only thing that matters when comparing runs completion time (in order to figure out whether most of the time got cut away or not) is the difference between the final overall times.
Fastest Contra 3 run without the major skip glitch is 13 minutes long. The major skip glitch run of it is 3 minutes long. The major skip glitch cuts away most of the time of the former.
You said that the branch name "game end glitch" requires the skip to be "major".
I questioned about whether it is the instance of a "glitch skip" that contributes to the "game end" is considered for the branch, because as the numbers indicate, the "game end glitch" itself resulted from the "GO warp" in Contra 3 saves only ~3 minutes in the last stage. The applications of the same glitch in other stages have little to no impact on this "game end" except for resource mangement. As the "more major" "pool-skip" in the lastest Clock Tower run didn't grants such a branch name, it seems arbitrary.
As you say, it is the overall time that matters. It still seems arbitray that such a run as that Contra 3 is branched "game end glitch" simply because it has a "GO warp" glitch that skips the majority of the run, but has much smaller contribution to the actual "glitch ending". (NEW) It would also make me wonder if a glitch-warped run that skips over a tiny part to the ending with a different glitch holds for this branch name.
I also questioned about whether it is the overall contribution of a glitch to the whole run, because the numbers indicate that the warp glitch in the Little Samson run saves more time than the "reused level glitch" in the Wizards & Warriors does. While the warp glitch in Little Samson doesn't resemble that "reused level glitch" in Wizards & Warriors, the former is quite similar in outcome compared to the "GO warp" in Contra 3. It seems arbitrary that the Little Samson run didn't even get the "Major skip" tag (letting alone the "game end glitch" branch name), while the other two did.
<klmz> it reminds me of that people used to keep quoting adelikat's IRC statements in the old good days
<adelikat> no doubt
<adelikat> klmz, they still do
It was my fault, but now can we get back to the topic with understanding in the context?
<klmz> it reminds me of that people used to keep quoting adelikat's IRC statements in the old good days
<adelikat> no doubt
<adelikat> klmz, they still do
A glitch that skips to the ending, but is not a major skip glitch, does not need to have its branch called out, because it makes it effectively a simple any% run with heavy glitch abuse.
<klmz> it reminds me of that people used to keep quoting adelikat's IRC statements in the old good days
<adelikat> no doubt
<adelikat> klmz, they still do
I am aware of the existing debate on what the ending of a game is.
How to define a game's ending?
But what's more...
FatRatKnight wrote:
Warped any%
* Sends the player to a later part of the game, but never directly at the credits/ending
* Optionally an intended part of the game; Could be a warp put in, or a glitch
Game end glitch
* Takes the player directly to the credits/ending
* Not ever something intended to be in the game (otherwise, it's a debug/cheat function, or perhaps a credits selection in Options)
That's what I think are the differences. Anyone else can chime in and correct me.
<klmz> it reminds me of that people used to keep quoting adelikat's IRC statements in the old good days
<adelikat> no doubt
<adelikat> klmz, they still do
I made a single-player SMB1 clone that runs at 84000 fps a few years ago.
<klmz> it reminds me of that people used to keep quoting adelikat's IRC statements in the old good days
<adelikat> no doubt
<adelikat> klmz, they still do
Well. So what about a run that uses a "game end glitch" that doesn't satisfy your definition of "major skip"? I am really asking about "game end glitch", not "major skip".
feos wrote:
They also usually cut down the time of the run dramatically, comparing to the fastest one that avoids the given glitch.
<klmz> it reminds me of that people used to keep quoting adelikat's IRC statements in the old good days
<adelikat> no doubt
<adelikat> klmz, they still do
