The best I've managed so far was "Mario Galaxy", which yielded 5,260,000:1.
I also call shenanigans, because there are far too many hits on "Xbox 360" in 2001 to be accurate. I'm not even sure the one hit on "Mario Galaxy" is deserved.
Edit: Apparently, "Xbox 360" was a website before Microsoft ever gave the platform that designation. Fair enough.
I'm all for improvement on an existing run that's already an impressive accomplishment in and of itself. However jaded I may become, I will respect improvement upon what has impressed me in the past.
I understand where others are coming from when they cite camera manipulation as a negative point here. I'm rather torn on it, myself; the camera takes some deliberately poor positioning in Bowser 2, though it's really only poor if you're wanting to follow Mario's movements. You could instead see, "wow, the author navigated that section cleanly and precisely without even having to see where the character is being guided to. Impressive." It's for this reason that I can't cite it as a negative point. At worst, it's a grey area.
In the end, I might prefer at least being able to follow Mario's movements. If the camera work in this submission stands due to a performance boost it allows, then I'll happily take that as a valid reason and give it a thumbs up. Otherwise, keeping a more logical camera angle is more likely to keep the majority of viewers happy.
Regardless of the status on that condition, I'm all for this being published as an improvement. I'd just give a stronger vote of appreciation if any purely stylistic choices were made viewer friendly.
And this is why I'm glad the industry has gotten a wee bit better about changing titles between regions.
Also, how about 'Sega Genesis/Megadrive & derivatives' or somesuch?
I'd sooner watch Ridge Racer, but I'm strange.
As far as GT is concerned, I'd be more interested in seeing those godless license tests aced to perfection than the actual game being attacked, but doing so doesn't actually result in any end game sequence. Oh well.
It won't take a rejection to start a flame war, just the submission of a movie for a high-profile game.
I do prefer this method of gathering opinion, however.
It's been stated clearly that some games really aren't suited to TASing, just due to the fact that they're incredibly boring to watch.
A perfect example of where the "should this movie be published?" question applies perfectly. The answer is: No, it should not be published because it's a very bad game choice.
And would the decision of whether or not the game is a bad choice be founded on..... entertainment?Warp wrote:
If the only question is, "should this be published?" then you could supply any reason you wanted for publication. If you thought a run should be published because the author had the A button depressed for 20976 frames, which can be parsed as your birthday, you could cite that as your reason.
You are joking, right? That's fine, but I was being serious.
No, I was being serious, as well. You made the argument that people will flip the current poll question around to suit their needs at the time, and I'm saying that changing the poll question to, "should this be published?" would only be easier to abuse in that regard.
Can't that question be finally changed to "should this movie be published"? It would better avoid this problem.
Part of me wants to agree with this, but the rest of me doesn't see a point. It's been stated clearly that some games really aren't suited to TASing, just due to the fact that they're incredibly boring to watch. You may have completed a game in record time, very cleanly and with a precision that would go unchallenged, but if the movie itself is boring, tedious, and overall not the slightest bit enjoyable to watch, what's the point in publishing it? Is it just to say, "this is the record, folks, nobody has ever made a faster line from start to finish"? If that's the case, what's the point in even voting? Let the bot see how long the video is, and if it beats the previous submission with the same goals, up it goes.
If the only question is, "should this be published?" then you could supply any reason you wanted for publication. If you thought a run should be published because the author had the A button depressed for 20976 frames, which can be parsed as your birthday, you could cite that as your reason. If you think it should be published because it's a Zelda run, and all Zelda runs should be accepted, then that's your reason. Doesn't do much for quality control. At least if you're asking the viewer if they were entertained, the judges have something slightly more cut and dry to go by.
And if someone wasn't entertained by this movie, then they weren't entertained. Maybe they find sidehopping obnoxious, or unskippable cinematics the bane of modern gaming. They weren't entertained, there's nothing to argue, it's a purely subjective matter of opinion.
Not really, no. I loved the series when I was younger, but there isn't much that I loved about it still alive today. I may give it a try later, but the franchise as it stands today is a lot like seeing your childhood hero laying drunk and unwashed in the gutter of some red light district.
Improvement over the published run, and makes the 'nightmare' mode look like it wasn't even trying to deter Spider-Man in the slightest. I mostly like that nearly all of the spider sense warnings appear to be false alarms; "spider senses tingling! Oh, it's just an invalid, nevermind."
If it weren't for laughing at the ineptitude of the sparsely populated henchmen, I might have been bored. The uninspired soundtrack doesn't help matters, nor does the fact that I have never actually played this game before. But I do just so happen to find enough comedy in a game possessing a 'nightmare' mode that can be bested in a little over five minutes to say I was entertained.
'Spider-Man vs The Kingpin' is also an apt title; other than a brief distraction from Dr Octopus, there's really not much more to the movie than Spider-Man busting into Kingpin's office and completely ruining his day.
A nice improvement lends itself well to a yes vote.
Graphically, the game really has not aged well. But I have a lot of fond multiplayer memories attached to that game, which helps it save some face. I'd certainly like to see more. :o
Depends on the game. Some 100% movies would be so long and tedious that the entertainment value would all but disappear, but the 100% runs I've actually watched so far have been quite enjoyable.
Sonic 2's (and 3's, for that matter) two-player mode is split-screen competition. There are always two characters playing, the AI never takes control of anything.
The one-player mode has the option of being just Sonic, just Tails, or Sonic with Tails controlled by the AI, though if any button is pressed on the second controller, the second controller controls Tails until he slides too far off screen. The game's title screen refers to this mode as '1-Player', so it is considered thus.
I think we should just keep doing what we've been doing: players submit movies, and if they are liked, regardless of the arbitrary rules imposed, we vote on them and publish them, and if not, we throw them out.
That isn't exactly what we've been doing, though. Some games have one or two categories, while others have several just based on what can be done with the game, or how many entertaining arbitrary goals players have come up with.
Should have added that list stipulation in beforehand, oh well.
Without IR, the Wiimote has no real idea where its placement is in space. It can tell which direction it's moving in, but not with any degree of accuracy. Apologies for the exaggeration.
The Wiimote just has a simple accelerometer. It knows when it's being jerked about, but it doesn't know with any real precision WHERE it's being moved to, or how. Without the sensor bar, all you can get out of the Wiimote is, "am I moving? Y/N"
It has an ability to sense which direction it is moving in, but it is not sensitive to degrees of motion in terms of distance, just in terms of force.
The whole brain usage potential bit has been largely misrepresented, as, barring injury or malformation, no area of our brain goes unused. Not everything is running at 100% capacity constantly, much like you wouldn't expect a quad core processor to sit under full load while typing up a message board reply with an IRC client running in the background. If everything in your brain was firing at once, the result would be unfathomably hectic. It would likely bottleneck somewhere, through no inherent fault of the brain itself, but nonetheless be the most spectacular manifestation of insanity.
The brain's potential can't be measured in terms of percentages, even on a case-by-case basis. We're all running within a comfortable margin of our potential, and the arbitrary limit of our potential can grow or shrink depending on the choices we make from day to day.
There's so much here that I haven't seen before, even if it's for lack of keeping up on the LoZ topics. Knocking the second quest down to such a miniscule completion time is impressive enough.
I do believe this one is a yes.
