Uhh… There's nothing sad for TAS, actually. Also, why do you care for idiots who can't see at least five different but obvious evidences that it isn't a human play?
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
My opinion on this movie is similar to Atma's, OgreSlayeR's and DK64_MASTER's. I'll give it a yes, but honestly, I expected more from this game. :\
I hope N64 MKT will be more entertaining…
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Wow. I have an impression that this game is not just hard, it is very very hard. Probably one of those overly long arcade/puzzle games only die-hard gamers bothered to complete back in the NES days, along with Battle City and the likes.
I had no idea of what was going on in the movie. Yes, it was fairly obvious that you must collect the heartpieces, then the pearl, and then proceed to the exit. what I completely didn't understand is those long and tedious block arrangement which didn't bear any noticeable benefit (especially when near those medusa heads), since all the enemies vanished when you touched the pearl anyway.
I also noticed that about 2/3 of the times you moved those blocks exactly on the grid squares, while in the rest of the cases you didn't finish moving them exactly on the grid, and left them overlapping two squares, which probably was enough for your causes. Maybe more time could be saved by doing that?
Another thing I didn't understand is the reason why all the monsters of the level are usually standing still, but start moving only after you pick up one of the heartpieces (not always the first one on your way, IIRC) or something like that. Oh, and the heartpieces also blinked, and yet again I didn't know why.
I feel obligated to vote yes for such an impressive improvement, but still would like having at least some of my questions answered (though I probably need to play this game to understand everything).
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
• Utilizes a robot player (refills, Wily3 boss, Wily4 boss, death, seizures)
Haha, nice.
If the game will ever be glitched through in less than 15 minutes, it would be reasonable to think about an additional no-zip run, because the poor thing is hardly recognisable anymore with this much zipping abuse.
Anyway, a yes vote for yet another surprising glitch.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Unfortunately, Super Metroid doesn't have a lot of run-definitive glitches to be portrayed, rather than a myriad of relatively small tricks and optimizations. The only such tricks I would imagine being funny as a gif are arm-pumping and probably short charge (because mockball will look too much like Zelda 2, lol).
The Kins wrote:
Oh, man! This is a good idea, and I know just how to do it!
Yep, that's why I suggested it. :)
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
I guess I'll just ask one more question. Is there a way to compress the video even more? After 2 minutes of recording, the file is around 700 mb.
"Even more" in which context? I'd recommend lossy encoding, x264 to be exact. If you want visually identical (quasi-lossless) quality, choose fixed quantizer factor of "0". Though I'd use something from the range of 18—24, that still doesn't produce disturbing artifacts but keeps the bitrate pretty low.
Of the lossless codecs, huffyuv is the only one I know.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
like, you sit near the wall, and play fishing game. Then You catch a big fish, swing controler... and it hits the wall behind you with the full speed XD
I thought about that when I watched the first trailers. Apparently, it needs a lot of room to be really comfortable with this controller (and also a firm grip). :)
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Nothing is very good to watch by itself, it's all about the environment and the circumstances of the usage. In SMW, it's (IMO) overabused to the point that every more or less straight stage consists only of a couple of "PWEE!"s to the nearest exit. Just watching Mario's sprite on the scrolling backgroung isn't very good at all. On the other hand, it's not nearly as bad in SDW because the stages there are a lot more interesting and complex per se, so the cape doesn't bring that much dissonance (again, in my opinion).
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
I'd say multiply the regular speedrun of the longest run by 4 and add 10%.
Umm, that (and the resulting number) makes very little sense. H.264 takes advantage of motion compensation on the whole image, so encoding four runs separately would mean larger total file size than cramming all of them into one big screen (it would be a bit harder on the CPU, though).
Furthermore, the whole movie would take about ~45 minutes to beat the longest game — comes from a (rather generous) ~30% speed penalty while having to manipulate four games at once, which diminishes as the games are idle or beaten. Add 5 more minutes for the credits (if one of the last two games to be finished will be MM 4 or 6, which have the longest credits).
So let's say it's a 50 minutes long .avi. With a bitrate of about 600 (based on the current DeHackEd's encode, which is 513 kbps video and 65 kbps audio), that's 3000 seconds * 600 kilobits / 8192 = ~220 megabytes, 230—240 in the worst case. Simple as that!
</nerd>
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
After a few watches at 100%, I'd have to say it appears very unlikely to be improvable by much.
Apparently, it is hardly improvable at all, even though it was made with Famtasia. There were some attempts at improving it with more recent tools, all of them unsuccessful.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
I also believe that some people don't like reading long and detailed description texts, and thus ignore some facts that could possibly affect their rating.
Having decimals may be useful, but I probably wouldn't use them due to already formed personal scale + a considerable level of uncertainty.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
I would say that also the amount of work put into the run may/should also affect the technical score, at least a bit. For example the amount of work that has been done in order to deliver the newest rockman video is just amazing. Just that alone should raise the technical score. Another good example of work put into a run which I admire is the new Gradius run. The work put into the Zelda TAS is also completely amazing. (There are several other examples too).
There are three main reasons why I usually don't take that into account.
• One could spend 1000 rerecords optimizing a certain section, then someone else goes and obsoletes the previous effort in just a couple of takes by using completely another approach (a situation somewhat similar to Arne's discovery which lead to instant 15+ seconds of improvement in Megaman, or kirbymuncher's improvement over JXQ's first Kirby's Adventure WIP). While the amount of work is greater in the first case, the result is faster/better/whatever in the second, so I would rate the second result technically higher (that is also why I never try to judge any activity by the amount of effort it takes to complete it).
• The amount of work is too difficult to judge — especially if the author doesn't openly demonstrate it. For example, Nitsuja worked silently on some of his later runs, made them in very short time span, and they all were of top quality. But we won't ever be able to evalute the amount of effort spent onto them. We won't know if it was easy or hard to him, and we don't know how does he define easy and hard comparing to our own definitions. Moreover, any author themself can say anything regarding the effort they've spent on their runs. No way to know for sure.
• Thus, without having any facts, one should follow the Occam's razor principle: the less assumptions there are, the better. That's a regular thing for any logic-driven person (which I am).
Of course, it's always hard to make a fair judgement on someone's run until you start improving it yourself, so I try to take into account every little detail when I'm watching a movie, including overall imprecision, lag and the actual data on possible improvements.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
The "perfect" score was not, in fact, intended to mean "there's just no way it can be improved, it has reached absolute perfection, it completes the game in the minimum possible amount of frames, it's a run which I would watch 1000 times in a row". It was meant to be more like "this is about the best video I have ever seen here, it was absolutely fabulous, I can't even imagine how it could be improved".
Well, for instance, to me a "10" in technical means "the run has reached the limit with the known tricks, and it can't be improved further using them". That's why I'm always trying to ask the authors of certain "overoptimized" runs if there are any places where time could be saved. If there weren't any, and the history of the run showed rather clearly that the game was already close to the limit, I gave such run a ten (currently there are 7 such runs, obviously none of them obsoleted).
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Ugh… The shit. :\
I was hoping for anything but this. The game basically runs at 20—30 FPS all the time as if it was actually emulated on GBA. How did this abomination of a game even slipped past the quality control?
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
please.