Ok, then start recording (Tools -> Movie -> Record new movie). Save a state (Shift+F1 by default) before doing something, load a state (F1) if you didn't succeed. There, you're already TASing, and the movie you're recording will only contain the latest changes you make to the playthrough.
The quality of your TAS is determined entirely by the standards you will set yourself. The more you will to go back and polish its inaccuracies, the smaller these inaccuracies are and the more new tricks you're willing to find, the better your TAS will be.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Find a ROM of a game you want to TAS, load it into VBA. Make sure everything works as expected. Set up the controls and such. Try playing the game.
Report here when you're done, and we'll discuss the next steps.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
A ROM is a file that represents a certain game cartridge. To play Super Mario Bros on a NES emulator FCEUX you will need to load a Super Mario Bros ROM (called "Super Mario Bros. (JU) [!].nes" or something like that) into it.
Also, sharing these is illegal, so we can't distribute links to ROMs on the forums.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
How does one arbitrarily decide what is "extreme"?
It is a very subjective notion, yes, but it is very easy to use in a case like this. Pretty much all of the game is skipped, and normally it doesn't allow that. It really is obvious when you're not thinking in assembly code. The glitch itself may not be extreme, but the result is.
In this sense it doesn't matter what exactly caused the game to end so soon (vast majority of the users won't care much about technical details, as usual, let alone understand them), so I don't think tying the branch name to a particular method of glitching makes much sense. Just "glitched" works just as well, and doesn't close the doors to other similarly severe potential exploits. Things tend to get wonky when you try to define something that is completely subjective with absolute and/or objective terms, such as numbers, percentages, and so on. There are too many instances where it doesn't work as intended.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Suppose we have a terrible emulator that wreaks all sorts of havoc on the gameplay. (I'm having a little trouble thinking up examples, but let's say the RNG is inaccurate, text boxes don't load properly, and the game's intro sequence doesn't load properly and is skipped.) For the purposes of publishing a run, it is irrelevant that it isn't console-accurate but rather that this emulator is the standard for TASVideos.
It was never supposed to be any close to this, and, to be honest, I was quite miffed DeSmuME was used as soon as it was (really, we could have waited another couple months for a much better version that came out in that time). In order to exploit a game and its code we need for it to be interpreted and run correctly, and for that we need correct emulation that doesn't introduce artifacts of its own.
Bobo the King wrote:
Our goal, as I see it, is to compare TASes with other TASes, not TASes with unassisted speedruns (not directly, at least).
The original notion has been misunderstood throughout the years since its original proclamation somewhere in 2004. Yes, we do want TASes to be comparable to unassisted play. No, we don't want TASes to compete with unassisted play.
TASes are more than a self-contained game-related art form; you need to think more global than that. Being comparable makes either kind of speedruns relevant to both parties, involving more people and providing a common benefit. Sticking them in the same league is, of course, pointless, but you need to understand the difference. Making them incomparable due to artifacts of emulation is not a way out of anything... whatever needs one to begin with.
creaothceann wrote:
Or you could just switch to bsnes (or SSNES, or libsnes with the SNES9x interface) and be done with this issue.
Wait... Really, we can just switch to a bsnes core with Snes9x GUI? Why haven't we done that yet? :o
It's like... we have a delicious cake already baked for us, and we just ignore it.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
From: favourgoodluck14@yahoo.com (0ooooooooooogoodf@att.net)
To: undisclosed recipients
Hello
My name is miss favour,
I will like to have a mutual relationship with you,
there is something crucial i will like to share with you
take care and lots of love,
please don't mind the distance and color
it has nothing to do with love
God bless you
favour.
I find it mildly humorous, especially the name (note how it's in lowercase).
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
This will be somewhat harsh; bear with me.
DarkKobold wrote:
You totally ignored the second part of the quote, which is ironically still included. "all Super Metroid Submissions by skilled SM tasers are awesome." A 17% run would be awesome. A 36% run would be awesome. A 69% (heh, heh) run would be awesome. All of the runs hero of the day listed were considered awesome, and had good feedback. So yes, I do want a limit on the "awesome." I'd rather not see a run for each percentage point or route possible through Super Metroid.
This argument is full of holes that still don't make sense, I rate it 6.0/1.5.
Firstly, if the runs were considered awesome, that's for a reason; the reason is them being awesome. Then, Super Metroid has been a very contested game here, which eventually lead to the amount of optimization most games are yet to see even in theory. Each of those awesome runs took the authors many months to bring them up to standard, and I'm talking months by skilled SM TASers. You're basing your point on something people are never going to do anyway.
DarkKobold wrote:
I see three arguments against multiple categories:
The first is the obvious slippery slope argument. Given that any route through Super Metroid could be considered entertaining, where do we draw the line? This is not a Super Metroid fansite, nor should it be.
Perhaps the concept is dated, but the site was predicated on having the best quality, most up-to-date runs on the site. The more branches to a game, the less likely it is for each branch to get a movie that uses the most recent tricks and findings. Thus, if we accepted all 9 SM categories, then over time, the majority would be woefully out of date. The end result is a muddy mess of movies, with the user not sure which is the best quality.
You need to have something better than slippery slopes if you want to keep making good decisions in life, and on this site in particular. They are recognized as a fallacy for a reason. Fallacy means something that doesn't hold; something that is false.
But this particular quote presents something that is even worse, that is, failure to analyze things and put them into perspective. I'll elaborate.
1. You evidently don't realize how optimized the recent runs are. Try improving any run that isn't Saturn's Ice Beam 14% (the one that had tricks excluded), and tell me when you manage to gain your first second. Chances are, you won't manage to get that far.
The runs are nothing close to "woefully out of date", and won't be until many relevant new tricks are found. Which, as time goes, is progressively harder to do; there was approximately one relevant trick introduced since the two year old T&K's any%; that trick was what Maridia here was based upon in this run.
You should kinda know this if you claim this movie for judgment. You could do your own research; you're a scientist after all.
2. Keeping in mind the above, Super Metroid has become completely inaccessible to newcomers. By keeping branches closer to the minimum you keep possible improvements closer to the minimum. After the experienced TASers leave the scene, who will keep the runs up to date, you? How will you encourage newcomers to TAS this game? How will you keep the flow of new runs coming? Let's hear your plan.
I want to reiterate once expressed point that being improvable is, in perspective, a good thing for the site: it keeps the potential for new versions and possibly even greater improvements that wouldn't have been made if a movie was considered flawless. Only best of the best may even consider tackling flawless movies. Most don't bother. The worst thing you can have at TASVideos is players not bothering.
I would also like to point out that Saturn, despite all the scorn associated with him, actually helps pushing this game further, and I applaud him for trying something that isn't as conventional as the rest. That is what you should want—you should want more unconventional stuff on the site; template thinking doesn't do a good job of keeping people excited, and on TASVideos we're kinda supposed to think outside the box—not forcefully shove things into the box.
3. The Super Metroid fansite argument. Probably the most hilarious—er, fallacious one, as less than 1% of published movies on the site are Super Metroid. In fact, it would be less than 1% even if all nine categories would be published. There are currently 809 games featured on the site that aren't Super Metroid. Rating this argument 7.0/0.0.
Super Metroid runs are being produced, despite the obvious effort involved, because that's what players want. They are watched because that's what the audience wants. You can't change one or the other, you can either adapt to both or not; now guess which one makes sense to do.
DarkKobold wrote:
Finally, many users have complained over the years that the site focuses far too much on popular games, and less popular games get ignored.
Well, then don't ignore less popular games, duh! What you're proposing is essentially ignoring something else instead, while nobody asked you—or anybody else for that matter—to ignore anything. Don't look for things to ignore! (My god, I don't believe I have to spell this out, this is funny and sad at the same time.)
If you want to solve this problem, encourage people to try new games (I remember the idea of making a TAS tutorial application floating around a couple years ago, maybe it should be considered once again?). Do some motivational work. Limiting the amount of categories has never solved this problem; it only introduced more problems.
Finally, I find it very strange that you formulate solutions negatively: through limitation, restriction, prohibition, and so on. Are you such a negative man or anything? Your field of education should point you to the fact that these things don't work remotely as well as the positivist approach, and a good portion of the time they don't work at all.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
It is a bad thing, for this movie, as it is difficult to once again accept a 5th category for Super Metroid.
Understand, that the decision on this movie is far from being made. Thus far, the argument hasn't really occurred, and the main argument is that "This movie is awesome." However, all Super Metroid Submissions by skilled SM tasers are awesome.
I do hope you see the inherent controversy in these two paragraphs: it's "difficult to accept" an additional movie because everything that goes for it is "being awesome". I dunno, it just seems funny to me that the reason for difficulty is that of all things. We don't want awesome things on the site? Too much awesome is a bad thing? Uhh, what's the logic here? :D
But let's try looking at this from the opposite perspective as well: what exactly will be compromised, harmed, or otherwise wronged by accepting this movie without having to remove any content from the site? Thus far, the argument hasn't really occurred, and the main argument is that "Having too many1 categories is a bad thing."
The site has progressed so much during the last few years and you are clinging to the worst of the atavisms as if it were something good to begin with. It was an arbitrary rule that has outlived its purpose many years ago. I look forward to the day when we drop the burden of arbitrary constraints that make little sense, if any.
Hope this was eloquent enough.
1 — I.e. over four, thank god it's not three anymore!
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
I've checked those articles, and it appears that nowadays they specifically ensure the convict is drugged sufficiently to not feel said torment. This kinda defeats the purpose of such barbaric practices, but certainly lets you feel better about crushing somebody with a large rock.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Now, if such a decision was cast in e.g. a haredi community, of their own member, and I heard about it. Would I object? Probably not. If I were a member of said community and saw it happen and knew it was true (and not a false accusation)? Probably not.
If you reread my post, I specifically outlined an active position with regards to that law. Passive position is not a particular gesture of faith; anybody can be passive regardless of their religion. I won't object to Haredis killing their kin, too, because I'm not there to object. But if I were given the choice to kill a person, or forced to do so by such a law, I wouldn't.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Would you, personally, put a homosexual to death—let's say an Israeli homosexual to be closer to the context—in the name of the Lord, if you don't see a particular problem with that law? Or is it only alright when somebody else does that when you don't see it?
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Sorry to interrupt, but pirate's original question wasn't whether it's bad to commit adultery or having homosexual coitus, but whether it makes sense to kill people for that. Especially the latter case, which doesn't make any sense, to be honest.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Indeed, they dip into the reserve thrice in the run, and while all of the instances could have theoretically been avoidable, together they save a lot more time than what is spent on taking the tank, and probably save other inconveniences that could have been incurred (such as ammo shortage and/or the need to spend more time refilling).
Having watched the run, I can say this is by far the most incredible Super Metroid run I've seen, and a clear—if not to say the most prominent so far—contender for TAS of the year. The amount of new tricks, or at least applications thereof, is mind-boggling, and all of the complaints normally associated with this type of runs are nonexistent: there are no surplus cutscenes, pause screens, too long boss fights, nothing of that; this run means business all the way through.
I salute you guys, this is clearly the best Christmas gift TASVideos has seen, and I'm very glad that after nearly seven years of development and changing authors (man, did it really take so damn long?!), a full RBO run is finally submitted here. Thank you!
(I will also make sure to write a worthy movie description once this is published.)
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Here's a list of all playarounds on the site: http://tasvideos.org/Movies-C1001Y.html
They disregard speed in favor of entertainment purposes; however, they still aim to do everything precisely and efficiently, showcasing as much as possible within the self-imposed time limits. There is no room for runs that are imprecise or inefficient for no good purpose; wasting viewer's time is never an option. Keep that in mind if you want to make a playaround.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
I hope you aren't going to argue that the Bible was written by God himself. It was written by men; it think that's obvious enough. By taking it literally you put your faith in those men first and God second.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
