Submission Text Full Submission Page
There are many methods for passing a classic game like Super Mario Bros, for example, warpless and walkathon. The movie I made aimed at a different strategy, to complete this game with the lowest score (500) without using replay, which is still scarce here.

Goals:

  • Complete the game with the lowest score (500)
    • As fast as possible
      • As entertaining as I can

How come 500 is the lowest score?

Good question. Super Mario Bros can be completed without touching any enemies or getting any goods, which few one could imagine I believe. The only necessary kind of points is getting 100 points when you grab the flagpole in each stages.
But getting the lowest score may not be as simple as you think. As a matter of fact, there really are some places where are hard to get through without any points. 4-2, for example. You can get no point either by climbing the vine with the help of the lift or by entering the pipe like I did in this run. And for the big hole in 8-1 that has 2 coins above it, you can hardly survive from that one.
In 1-1, 4-1, 8-1, 8-2, 8-3, you have to wait for the time decreases to 0, or you'll get more than just 100 points on the flagpole, possibly fireworks, too. I did the flagpole glitch everytime as same as always, because it's the fastest way. I have tried to make the flagpole send Mario to the left to end the level, but unfortunately it goes slowlier for some reasons.

A lowest score run can be entertaining

In people's opinions, waiting for the time goes by is kind of boring. No, it can be as entertaining as any other speedruns.
I have performed lots of tricks to keep this movie entertaining all the way. For example, walljumps, moonwalks, wall passing, and hiding from enemies. Those are several skills that are often shown in this movie, there are other tricks that have never shown before in my runs, too.

Most entertaining parts of this run

You don't want to miss these following performances, do you?
  • 1-1: Gaining a jumping mushroom, due to the help of the jumping star
  • 4-1: Walking between 2 spines that were so closed to Mario
  • 8-1: Walljumping backwards and forwards
  • 8-2: Getting the 1UP mushroom upside-down by design
  • 8-3: Playing jokes on hammer brothers
  • A special dance for all in the end of 8-3
A nice snapshot for everyone, hope you like this run!

Nach: This run is a bit shocking. I sat down to watch it thinking 15 minutes is going to be a snooze. Much to my surprise and delight, this run is a lot more exciting than I expected. Mario dances figure eights around enemies as if they weren't even there. Reminds me of Gradius. The first level was very boring, but 4-1 is a lot more exciting with the Spinys raining down. 8-1 is a pure delight. 8-2 and 8-3 are in a league of their own. Playing with the Hammer Bros. is one of the most exciting things I've seen in a TAS. Dancing to the music was appreciated too.
Overall, I think this run provides a lot more entertainment than a standard 5 minute TAS of this game. In terms of meeting its defined goals it also does it well. For the goals in question, speed-wise, this movie will also be hard to beat.
Now the question is, does this deserve publication or not? There is a lot of time seemingly "wasted", and the beginning is lackluster. On the other hand, so are playarounds of other games filled with auto-scrolling. The Judge Guidelines state: "A run for a proposed new branch for a game should offer compelling differences relative to previously published runs of that game.". I think that is undeniable fact in this case. Further: "don't publish an arbitrarily rule-restricted movie just because there are too few movies for that game; doing so may lead to impossible-to-solve 'why A but not B' debates later.". A role of "lowest possible score" is less arbitrary than a lot of other goals we've seen people submit. Accepting this certainly wouldn't be solely because there are too few runs for this game.
Then there's the player guidelines which state: "Please note that we do not accept an indefinite number of variants for any given game. Any more than 3 for a game is very uncommon.". It's not a hard limit, so I can see us bending the rules if a run really deserves it. But does it? This run only has a 40% approval rating.
If we cut out the "perfect" parts of the run such as 1-2, 4-2, and 8-4, we're left with levels which need to "waste time" and provide a lot of entertainment. If we can put 1-1, and the slow parts of 4-1 in one movie, and the rest of it in another movie, I think we'd have a consensus to reject the former and accept the latter as a playaround. As it stands, I can't see this movie being anything more than a concept movie.
So should I reject it based on the former, or accept it as a concept run based on the latter? I'll reserve judgment for a few more days in hope that others will refute pros or cons I listed here. Please comment on these points.

Nach: Thanks for everyone who commented further. It seems the added entertainment to this run is outweighed by the boring sections and the repetitiveness of the entertainment itself. Rejecting.
feos: After thinking for 12 years about this movie and how loaded it is with cool techniques just to burn time, I believe it makes perfect sense to send it to Playground. No I don't plan to unreject anything else until we shrink the queue. Just wanted to move this real quick since it requires no extra work for anyone.

Editor, Player (44)
Joined: 7/11/2010
Posts: 1022
goldfish wrote:
ais523 wrote:
As a direct response to Nach's comment, this fails as a speedrun (obviously, too much waiting) ... I'd suggest removing the lowest-score goal, and abandon all pretence that it's a speedrun
This sort of argument keeps appearing in the thread, and I totally disagree with it, because even though there is a lot of waiting, by definition this is absolutely a speedrun, as it achieves a specific, well-defined goal in the shortest time possible. To get the lowest score, waiting until the timer reaches zero is necessary. There are many published movies on this site that deliberately take a longer route and/or have unavoidable waiting periods for the sake of accomplishing a goal other than the standard Get-To-The-Credits-ASAP. I really think this meets all technical qualifications for publication in its current form, and the only matter to debate is whether it's just a boring goal choice - and I think it would be if not for the top-notch playaround entertainment - but I guess the current vote tally suggests most feel otherwise (bleah).
I don't mean it isn't a speedrun in the technical sense. I mean that the run isn't entertaining for the same reason that typical speedruns are entertaining. Imagine a typical glitchless TAS of a typical platformer, aiming for best speed. There's rarely anything there done specifically for entertainment (except in some cases with alternative routes, and autoscrolling levels), but many people, including me, enjoy watching them because a high level of technical perfection, knowledge of the game, and similar tricks, is needed to accomplish that sort of speed. In the case of any run (or section of a run) with a fixed completion time, that sort of justification for speedruns generally being worth publication goes out of the window. (Pretty much all TASes aim to be entertaining instead in such circumstances.) Now, what we have here is a run where certain levels are done as fast as possible (avoiding coins and enemies, which doesn't look particularly different to a typical warped run of the game), and other levels have a fixed duration due to the low-score requirements. If it were mostly speedy levels, with a couple of fixed-time levels, it would be much the same as a typical platformer with autoscrollers, making a decent speedrun (if rather too similar to existing speedruns of the game to really be worth watching). However, this particular run is so full of fixed-time levels that it no longer really contains those elements that make a speedrun interesting. That's why I say it fails as a speedrun, even though the time in question is likely the fastest achievable, or at least close to it. We don't publish things here because they meet the technical requirements to be a speedrun; we publish them because speedruns of many types of games (including platformers) tend to be fun to watch, for a certain set of consistent reasons. How well it works as a playaround is a different issue, but I've covered that already, and you haven't objected to me on that.
Site Admin, Skilled player (1236)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11272
Location: RU
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Emulator Coder
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
feos wrote:
Requested SD mp4 encode http://www.mediafire.com/?s3ib6a27gklmu61
Thanks, much appreciated.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Former player
Joined: 3/31/2005
Posts: 192
Location: Argentina
Yes, publish it. As a concept run, if you must.
Player (42)
Joined: 12/27/2008
Posts: 873
Location: Germany
I found this extremely boring, I really don't see the entertainment in any of the slow levels, it's just pointless jumping between enemies forever while waiting for the timer to run out. Besides, I don't find SMB suitable for a playaround at all, the fastest completion goal is what this game is about. Voted No. At Nach's question: As said before, I disagree with your entertainment rating of this run, but this is just one's opinion and shouldn't be taken in an impartial judging. Like many other movies, there are arguments that support both acceptance and rejection of this movie. However, despite this run having an explicitly defined goal, it's still arbitrary. There are movies that claim to be 100% when the game doesn't provide a completion counter and others that are glitchfree when it's unclear what a programming error is. Still, those are entertaining categories that get relevant support. The addition of the lowest score goal, however, reduces the entertainment from a speedrun and reduces the entertainment from an unrestricted playaround, like many pointed out. It can be concluded, then, that this is an inferior category in both sides, and seeing from the initial negative feedback, this movie doesn't stand well to the general viewer in its own, so it's not a good idea to publish it until a playaround is made (we really can't be sure if it will). So, if I were the judge, my verdict would be the rejection of this run.
Emulator Coder
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Thank you p4wn3r. You disagree with Lord Tom and mklip2001 then?
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Player (42)
Joined: 12/27/2008
Posts: 873
Location: Germany
Nach wrote:
Thank you p4wn3r. You disagree with Lord Tom and mklip2001 then?
Yes, I disagree. Thanks for getting my attention to their posts.
Active player (405)
Joined: 3/22/2006
Posts: 708
Voted meh. I love the idea, but as soon as I realized you'd be wasting the clock in every single level I realized how insane it is. It's just not very entertaining to sit through you literally wasting time for 8 levels.
BigBoct
He/Him
Editor, Former player
Joined: 8/9/2007
Posts: 1692
Location: Tiffin/Republic, OH
I have to agree with p4wn3r; the addition of the "lowest score" restriction detracts significantly from the entertainment value for me, both as a speedrun and as a playaround. I would love to see a playaround category for SMB, but this is not the right movie to inaugurate that category. No vote.
Previous Name: boct1584
sgrunt
He/Him
Emulator Coder, Former player
Joined: 10/28/2007
Posts: 1360
Location: The dark horror in the back of your mind
I finally got around to watching this. I see effectively zero entertainment value here. Given the discussion, that in itself doesn't seem to warrant rejecting the run, so I'm going to dissect Nach's lengthy comments in the submission text and respond to them.
Nach wrote:
This run is a bit shocking. I sat down to watch it thinking 15 minutes is going to be a snooze. Much to my surprise and delight, this run is a lot more exciting than I expected.
As the above comments suggest, I disagree completely; I don't see the entertainment value.
Nach wrote:
Mario dances figure eights around enemies as if they weren't even there. Reminds me of Gradius.
In my view, earlier runs of the game also demonstrate this - admittedly, to a lesser extent, but since when have enemies ever been a barrier in our superplays? It's not exactly a new concept.
Nach wrote:
The first level was very boring, but 4-1 is a lot more exciting with the Spinys raining down. 8-1 is a pure delight. 8-2 and 8-3 are in a league of their own. Playing with the Hammer Bros. is one of the most exciting things I've seen in a TAS. Dancing to the music was appreciated too. Overall, I think this run provides a lot more entertainment than a standard 5 minute TAS of this game.
See previous comments about not seeing the entertainment in this.
Nach wrote:
In terms of meeting its defined goals it also does it well. For the goals in question, speed-wise, this movie will also be hard to beat.
Let's examine the stated goal in a little more detail in light of the guidelines.
Guidelines wrote:
Choose goals that will make the run entertaining. For most games, a “fastest at any cost” mentality is best[...]
Guidelines wrote:
Make it so that the speed loss is not obvious to the viewer.
Guidelines wrote:
Please note that we do not accept an indefinite number of variants for any given game. Any more than 3 for a game is very uncommon.
My view is that a run which sacrifices as much time as it does for the sake of avoiding a handful of points (which are in themselves a very minor aspect of this game) is, in general, incompatible with the objectives of the site. It is a goal which leads to singularly uninteresting video - imagine running other games with an objective of lowest possible score, and ask yourself if you would want to watch this on a regular basis.
Nach wrote:
Now the question is, does this deserve publication or not? There is a lot of time seemingly "wasted", and the beginning is lackluster. On the other hand, so are playarounds of other games filled with auto-scrolling.
This isn't an autoscroller.
Nach wrote:
The Judge Guidelines state: "A run for a proposed new branch for a game should offer compelling differences relative to previously published runs of that game.". I think that is undeniable fact in this case.
Different? Yes. Compelling? No. (See previous comments."
Nach wrote:
Further: "don't publish an arbitrarily rule-restricted movie just because there are too few movies for that game; doing so may lead to impossible-to-solve 'why A but not B' debates later.".
Guidelines wrote:
Please note that we do not accept an indefinite number of variants for any given game. Any more than 3 for a game is very uncommon.
We have four runs for this game already - which can hardly be called too few! I think those four runs collectively define the essence of gameplay of this game.
Nach wrote:
A role of "lowest possible score" is less arbitrary than a lot of other goals we've seen people submit. Accepting this certainly wouldn't be solely because there are too few runs for this game.
This reads, basically, as "accept because it's a less arbitrary goal than some of the other arbitrary goals that have been submitted to this site". The goal needs to be compelling on its own. In this case it isn't.
Nach wrote:
Then there's the player guidelines which state: "Please note that we do not accept an indefinite number of variants for any given game. Any more than 3 for a game is very uncommon.". It's not a hard limit, so I can see us bending the rules if a run really deserves it. But does it? This run only has a 40% approval rating.
Does that suggest that the run deserves it?
Nach wrote:
If we cut out the "perfect" parts of the run such as 1-2, 4-2, and 8-4, we're left with levels which need to "waste time" and provide a lot of entertainment. If we can put 1-1, and the slow parts of 4-1 in one movie, and the rest of it in another movie, I think we'd have a consensus to reject the former and accept the latter as a playaround. As it stands, I can't see this movie being anything more than a concept movie.
Meaningless argument - the run can't be divided in this. It's all or nothing.
Nach wrote:
So should I reject it based on the former, or accept it as a concept run based on the latter? I'll reserve judgment for a few more days in hope that others will refute pros or cons I listed here. Please comment on these points.
In light of the above, there is absolutely no reason to accept this run.
Skilled player (1637)
Joined: 11/15/2004
Posts: 2202
Location: Killjoy
Wow. I think this submission now has more NO votes than any other submission. Actually, sadly, this submission got more votes than most of my submissions this year combined. I'm now submitting all my runs as Super Sonic-Metroid-Mariovania in X:XX:XX.XX, regardless of the game.
Sage advice from a friend of Jim: So put your tinfoil hat back in the closet, open your eyes to the truth, and realize that the government is in fact causing austismal cancer with it's 9/11 fluoride vaccinations of your water supply.
Joined: 7/10/2008
Posts: 44
DarkKobold, you forgot Mega Man. I think I'm going to have to go with no on this one. As stated by others, this fails as both a speedrun and a playaround; it would be better served as one or the other, rather than trying to be both simultaneously. That said, there is some great stuff in here and it's not the most boring run I've ever seen. Based on some the tricks and stunts seen here, I would like to see a full playaround (which could incorporate some of the enemy avoiding stuff seen here). And if this is accepted, I think a full playaround should obsolete it. Thanks for the mp4, feos. And thanks to Happylee for making a run that's making myself and others think and type out a response other than "Dude, that was wicked awesome. Yes vote." or "Boring as heck. No."
Post subject: Re: #2908: HappyLee's NES Super Mario Bros "lowest score (500)" in 14:32.8
Joined: 3/11/2008
Posts: 583
Location: USA
Nach wrote:
The first level was very boring, but 4-1 is a lot more exciting with the Spinys raining down. 8-1 is a pure delight. 8-2 and 8-3 are in a league of their own. Playing with the Hammer Bros. is one of the most exciting things I've seen in a TAS.
Agree totally. The speed goal making this not available against Bowser is a slight disappointment.
Nach wrote:
Overall, I think this run provides a lot more entertainment than a standard 5 minute TAS of this game. In terms of meeting its defined goals it also does it well. For the goals in question, speed-wise, this movie will also be hard to beat. Now the question is, does this deserve publication or not? There is a lot of time seemingly "wasted"
Wasted time + speed-wise difficult to beat would mean for me " wrong, no vote. " In this respect, both time and score goals can be beaten by using the continue feature, as early levels no longer need to be slow-run, and continuing would mean only the 300 points from the world 8 flagpoles is kept. In this respect I almost feel a level-select to world 8 would be preferable.
"A run for a proposed new branch for a game should offer compelling differences relative to previously published runs of that game.". I think that is undeniable fact in this case.
Agreed. This run is sufficiently different in everything but 1-2 4-2 and 8-4.
If we cut out the "perfect" parts of the run such as 1-2, 4-2, and 8-4, we're left with levels which need to "waste time" and provide a lot of entertainment. If we can put 1-1, and the slow parts of 4-1 in one movie, and the rest of it in another movie, I think we'd have a consensus to reject the former and accept the latter as a playaround.
I am about at "meh" on 1-1/4-1 (and the speed levels, though I was surprised at pipe-access to 678 warp) but at a strong "yes" for world 8. I don't think I can put my finger on either side of the scale you find yourself on, aside from pointing out the "no-deaths" goal as somewhat arbitrary. If I had noticed the music dancing (I watched the youtube encode) I would probably vote yes. (aside)...quoting that initial post makes for some odd code(/aside)
adelikat
He/Him
Emulator Coder, Site Developer, Site Owner, Expert player (3598)
Joined: 11/3/2004
Posts: 4739
Location: Tennessee
I found sgrunts points far more compelling than Nach's points. As for me, I didn't find this an entertaining watch. The goal is silly and in itself has no TAS value. It seems like just a good excuse to playaround which is fine except that most of the entertaining playaround possibilities are killed by needing to avoid points. You are left with a very limited bag of tricks that get used too often. Also, I think the 4 categories, 2 hacks, and 3 smb2j movies show off this engine quite nicely. There are aspects that still haven't been shown but this movie doesn't show them either. Someone mentioned the idea of playing around to the last second then racing to the end of the level just in time. I think this would have improved the entertainment value of the movie (not enough for me to not vote no, but still, it is a good idea). That being said, I think HappyLee came quite close to maximizing the entertainment value given his goal choice. I find that commendable.
It's hard to look this good. My TAS projects
Banned User, Former player
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
adelikat wrote:
Someone mentioned the idea of playing around to the last second then racing to the end of the level just in time. I think this would have improved the entertainment value of the movie (not enough for me to not vote no, but still, it is a good idea).
I'm not completely sure of that. It could make the waiting for the timer to go down even more boring because the author would have to waste time somewhere at the beginning of the level instead of distributing the "playaround" evenly throughout (hence giving more variation).
Player (36)
Joined: 9/11/2004
Posts: 2623
Why lowest score? I think highest score (without dying or otherwise repeating all or a portion of a level) would be a more interesting goal.
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day, Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.
Patashu
He/Him
Joined: 10/2/2005
Posts: 4017
OmnipotentEntity wrote:
Why lowest score? I think highest score (without dying or otherwise repeating all or a portion of a level) would be a more interesting goal.
You'd use shell-on-the-stairs trick to accumulate most of your points.
My Chiptune music, made in Famitracker: http://soundcloud.com/patashu My twitch. I stream mostly shmups & rhythm games http://twitch.tv/patashu My youtube, again shmups and rhythm games and misc stuff: http://youtube.com/user/patashu
Editor, Expert player (2315)
Joined: 5/15/2007
Posts: 3856
Location: Germany
You can ban that trick for the highest-score category as an entertainment/speed trade-off.
Joined: 10/20/2006
Posts: 1248
The point of this TAS seems to prove that a run aiming for the lowest score can still be made entertaining. Thus, it tries to prove a certain concept to work and would probably have to be published as a concept demo, if anything. I think it does work, but not very well (I voted no). There seems to be a general agreement that a generic playaround would be more entertaining than this, however. So it's surely a bad idea to publish it in the general section. As for the votes, it's not clear whether the "no"-votes actually don't want this to be published at all, or just not in the main section of the site. Personally, I think it would be good to keep attempts at implementing "novel" concepts like this (even if they fail) published in the concept demo section, so new visitors can get a clear overview of what has been tried in the past and why it does/doesn't work. Only if the quality of execution of such a run is bad I wouldn't publish it, because then it would be a bad representation of that certain concept. It would be very inspirating to skim through such a concept demo section if you ask me. I'd put f.e. the first two-games at once TAS there with a general merit of "concept works well", the first 6-games at once TAS with "doesn't work so well because of reasons a,b,c", etc. Just an idea. I know it'd make that section seem kind of messy and disorganized though. Maybe it'd be good to put working concept demos above those that don't work at least. idk
Editor, Expert player (2315)
Joined: 5/15/2007
Posts: 3856
Location: Germany
Why don't we just realize this idea which was also brought up by Tub at some point, if I remember correctly, so we can publish as many categories as we want? Basicly, have one page per game and list all the runs for it.
Joined: 10/20/2006
Posts: 1248
MUGG wrote:
Why don't we just realize this idea which was also brought up by Tub at some point, if I remember correctly, so we can publish as many categories as we want? Basicly, have one page per game and list all the runs for it.
I guess the problem with such ideas is that it'd always take a lot of work to implement them
BigBoct
He/Him
Editor, Former player
Joined: 8/9/2007
Posts: 1692
Location: Tiffin/Republic, OH
MUGG wrote:
Basicly, have one page per game and list all the runs for it.
So essentially the same system SDA has? I would be in favor of that.
Previous Name: boct1584
Banned User, Former player
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
MUGG wrote:
You can ban that trick for the highest-score category as an entertainment/speed trade-off.
Sounds like too much of a gratuitously arbitrary rule for a run.
TASVideosGrue
They/Them
Joined: 10/1/2008
Posts: 2739
Location: The dark corners of the TASVideos server
om, nom, nom... crunchy!
MarbleousDave
He/Him
Player (12)
Joined: 9/12/2009
Posts: 1555
I bet this would be a candidate for Gruefood Delight.