Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Experienced player
(852)
Joined: 11/15/2010
Posts: 267
I don't know that much about the Ultima series, but you seemed to cruise through this pretty well and the explanation was fantastic. Definitely some long dungeon, seems half the run is just marching through them. yes vote
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Experienced player
(852)
Joined: 11/15/2010
Posts: 267
warmCabin wrote:
link_7777 wrote:
Ford wrote:
I'm going to go with No on this one, based on the facts that this goes to stage 256 instead of stopping once it finishes one loop of the hardest difficulty, and that the author mentioned discovering a method of climbing ladders faster, but did not implement it for this run. As this is a 2-hour video, I understand the rationale for the latter, but stopping upon finishing one loop in the hardest difficulty would've dropped it down to about 15 or 20 minutes.
I complained about the fast ladder climbing because of how much time I had put into the run before I discovered them, but I did start over and the run I submitted includes the fast ladder climbing
If you want to see the slow ladder climbing, I made a quickie TAS of the first stage a couple months ago. Seems to be about 5 seconds slower than your first stage, link_777. Even though I used 3 peppers...
I'm not sure how that compares to the strat I had before fast ladders, but it is possible to beat the first sausage to the top left him at the start, even without the fast ladders. I'm guessing it makes for a faster start to do so, but obviously the fast ladders still make a huge difference
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Experienced player
(852)
Joined: 11/15/2010
Posts: 267
Ford wrote:
I'm going to go with No on this one, based on the facts that this goes to stage 256 instead of stopping once it finishes one loop of the hardest difficulty, and that the author mentioned discovering a method of climbing ladders faster, but did not implement it for this run. As this is a 2-hour video, I understand the rationale for the latter, but stopping upon finishing one loop in the hardest difficulty would've dropped it down to about 15 or 20 minutes.
I complained about the fast ladder climbing because of how much time I had put into the run before I discovered them, but I did start over and the run I submitted includes the fast ladder climbing
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Experienced player
(852)
Joined: 11/15/2010
Posts: 267
GJTASer2018 wrote:
link_7777 wrote:
I suppose if order were really intended it would be a numbered list and not a bulleted list.
If I'm reading things correctly, the bullet points are arranged in such a way as to emphasize the policy of "no significant new content at all to be discovered" first and foremost. If that's true, then the bullets should indeed be numbered.
Does a killscreen count as "significant new content"? I would say yes, minor though it might be, and that the run should go that killscreen. Entertainment won't matter much (if at all) in this case because the submission can just be put in the Vault - that's what it's there for. :)
I would agree that the kill screen alone counts as new content. There is more than that though, stage 256 (the one before the kill screen) has a couple of graphical issues, but also the enemies are back to the slowest speed. The stage number is used to set the enemy AI, and since the stage number has wrapped around to 0 the enemies are slow again
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Experienced player
(852)
Joined: 11/15/2010
Posts: 267
Memory wrote:
link_7777 wrote:
Spikestuff wrote:
Radiant wrote:
If I understand correctly, there is no new content after stage 29. So wouldn't that be a suitable endpoint for the TAS, per our movie rules?
Yes, I don't believe we actually have a TAS (well besides this one) that actually ends on a kill screen.
If a Judge sees fit and if link_7777 agrees it might turn into a case where this movie can be truncated to the ending loop if going for kill screen serves as an "issue".
Anyone can correct me on this one (especially if the rules changed).
On the movie rules page under Games without a clear ending the "kill screen" bullet is above the "no new content" bullet
I do not believe suitable end points for games without clear endings are listed in any particular order.
EDIT: It was pointed out to me that the Judge guidelines suggest asking the author to play more if they chose an earlier point in the list. I'm not sure this is necessarily the best course of action if a later point features nearly identical play.
I suppose if order were really intended it would be a numbered list and not a bulleted list. I think you could make a case for ending this movie at the end of the 5th loop. I would argue that even though the kill screen isn't particularly spectacular the graphical errors on stage 256 and the kill screen itself constitute content that would be missing from a 5 loop movie.
Admittedly a large chunk of this movie features nearly identical play, but I don't feel like that is a good excuse for cutting out the kill screen (or stage 256 which is unique).
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Experienced player
(852)
Joined: 11/15/2010
Posts: 267
Spikestuff wrote:
Radiant wrote:
If I understand correctly, there is no new content after stage 29. So wouldn't that be a suitable endpoint for the TAS, per our movie rules?
Yes, I don't believe we actually have a TAS (well besides this one) that actually ends on a kill screen.
If a Judge sees fit and if link_7777 agrees it might turn into a case where this movie can be truncated to the ending loop if going for kill screen serves as an "issue".
Anyone can correct me on this one (especially if the rules changed).
On the movie rules page under Games without a clear ending the "kill screen" bullet is above the "no new content" bullet
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Experienced player
(852)
Joined: 11/15/2010
Posts: 267
GJTASer2018 wrote:
Very very Meh, very very Vault material. That's what I think of it.
You didn't mention why you chose the NES port though link_7777, as there were a few different reasonable choices for this game, some with different mechanics than the NES port:
* Arcade original (it was long thought that this had a killscreen but this isn't actually true)
* The very good Colecovision port (playable in BizHawk)
* The very good Intellivision port (also playable in BizHawk)
The only port that should be avoided is the Atari 2600 version (mostly because of the god-awful graphics it had!)
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Experienced player
(852)
Joined: 11/15/2010
Posts: 267
Good improvement for a game that is largely an auto-scroller. I'm not wild about including the obstacle course in the main category, but I also don't care that much. I could see there being two branches, though I doubt the idea would have much support. That said, yes vote from me
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Experienced player
(852)
Joined: 11/15/2010
Posts: 267
I did't read through the whole thread, but I saw at least a few posts that suggested this lacks entertainment, which is a viewpoint that surprises me. I think this is both awesome and an easy yes vote
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Experienced player
(852)
Joined: 11/15/2010
Posts: 267
Cutting the bottom of the 9th is definitely worth looking at as an improvement. Otherwise I thought there was some good variety in the outs, the catcher even picks up a bunt and chases down the runner at one point. I gave it a yes vote