Edit: Better idea "Simulates play by # players" where # is the number of controllers used for normal gameplay (as opposed to reset sequence or cheat-code) purposes.
The only problem with mini games both TAS and speedrunning wise is that you usually get a bunch of people who got the exact same score meaning often perfection is quite easily reached in a short space of time.
@upthorn : Man I put myself much in a movie and you really aren't recognizing it. Why can't you tell me what did I missed ? Or someone else. I watched my movie like 3 times in detail and I didn't see what did I miss.
you're 3 frames slower than his published movie, just getting to the first frame of action (377 vs 374)
As for the actual movie, I think it's a somewhat interesting game, but Aqfaq makes some very good points. First of all, you're 3 frames slower than his published movie, just getting to the first frame of action (377 vs 374). Also, I'm not a big fan of fuzzy goals, unless the movie is very entertaining, and specifically aims for entertainment, as opposed to completing the objectives as fast as possible. Fuzzy goals are frowned upon because it makes judging harder, and discourages future obsoletion attempts. If a future submission decides to go for the treasures that you didn't collect, should the two runs be comparable, even though they collect different things? I'm sorry, but in your objectives you aim for 100% treasures, but fail to do that, so I have to vote no. If you manage to find a glitch that allows you to collect the ones you needed to skip over, and get the "super secret" treasure Aqfaq mentioned, I'll certainly reconsider. But as it stands right now, you didn't complete your stated objectives, and "showing all the game" is a poor goal for any game.
As for encoding things, Mupen can be somewhat finicky (or to put it less politely, a pain in the ass). Whether that is the reason for the delay, or whether the judges have simply not gotten around to it, I cannot say.