Emulator Coder, Site Developer, Site Owner, Expert player
(3599)
Joined: 11/3/2004
Posts: 4739
Location: Tennessee
So realtime + IGT will merge again? And is only separate because nobody has man'ed up and made a good enough movie?
A problem solvable with badassery. That's fine by me, we just need someone to step up then.
Now we're talking! I don't care if the new branchless submission obsoletes ingame or not, but that is when that question should be directly asked, not now.
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.
Wouldn't a fair compromise (to avoid clutter on the SNES listing) be for Super Metroid to have its own page of the various runs? And only a run in one of the categories can obsolete a run in said category?
I think Super Metroid has proven that there's many entertaining ways the games can be completed.
If said runs are really that different from each other but have different times and ways that they entertain, it doesn't seem right to not have them. We have a Swordless run of Zelda 1, for instance, which was vastly different from the current any% or 100%/"all items" runs. I imagine such is the case for Super Metroid runs?
EDIT: Actually, a better example is Pokemon R/B/Y. We have Y beating the game in one minute using ACE, but Blue (or is it Red currently?) uses alternative methods of executing code to beat it in under 30 minutes (I can't recall the exact time off the top of my head). Both vastly different and entertaining for different reasons.
I'd say that the current in-game time run is not a "large skips" run by my definition, and that the new run is, and thus no obsoletion would be appropriate. (I need to get around to a formal definition of "large skips" sometime; it's a method of categorizing glitches by how much of the game they can skip, as opposed to what methods are used, and thus is a little more objective. For Super Metroid, it covers any method of entering Tourian except via killing all four bosses to activate the statue cutscene, and any method of winning the game that is does not involve entering Tourian and then defeating Mother Brain.)
I'd say that the current in-game time run is not a "large skips" run by my definition, and that the new run is, and thus no obsoletion would be appropriate. (I need to get around to a formal definition of "large skips" sometime; it's a method of categorizing glitches by how much of the game they can skip, as opposed to what methods are used, and thus is a little more objective. For Super Metroid, it covers any method of entering Tourian except via killing all four bosses to activate the statue cutscene, and any method of winning the game that is does not involve entering Tourian and then defeating Mother Brain.)
It should be noted as such in the branch name then, because it opens it up for obsoletion if it's not.
It should be noted as such in the branch name then, because it opens it up for obsoletion if it's not.
You want all our runs that don't use "large skips" to be labeled "no large skips"?
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.
Super Metroid does have some problems about branch flooding, and to be honest, I don't see much difference between the realtime run and the IGT run except that Samus beats Ridley earlier and takes Plasma Beam in the IGT run. I support obsoleting the fastest in-game time run.
I also don't quite understand the principle of two 14% runs. Why does Samus have to take 3 Life Tanks?
It should be noted as such in the branch name then, because it opens it up for obsoletion if it's not.
You want all our runs that don't use "large skips" to be labeled "no large skips"?
Most games don't have any of those "large skips", we do obviously have some exceptions like OoT and Super Metroid. In these cases I'd like there to be some more clear names in the branches so we don't have these endless discussions of obsoletion because the branches would be clear and concise.
I believe having many runs of the same game is only a "presentation" issue, not a real problem. It is thus only an artificial fix to try to obsolete vaguely similar branches, caused by that "presentation" issue.
I don't think obsoletion is appropriate here.
Most games don't have any of those "large skips", we do obviously have some exceptions like OoT and Super Metroid. In these cases I'd like there to be some more clear names in the branches so we don't have these endless discussions of obsoletion because the branches would be clear and concise.
Yeah, so you notice that using "large glitchy skips" is very rare. It's so rare it's an exception to all the rest completion approaches. But it is the same term that can be used in many games as long as such skips become possible (probably after 10 more years most of our Mooned games will have a glitched branch). So if those are avoided (which is so common it's default), it's not because some particular trick was banned, it's because the very skip is banned for such runs. As a result, we only need to mention if "large glitchy skips" are used, and not mention anything about them otherwise.
On the other hand, if some exclusive trick is banned, we assess the common use of it and apply "no X" if it is used in most cases. See SM64 "no BLJ".
The only thing that can confuse now is the obsoleted branches that I didn't take time to rename.
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.
I agree that the IGT run should be obsoleted. As a goal, it's not meaningfully different from the fastest run by input length; and as a movie, it is several years behind in discovered tricks and exploits.
as a movie, it is several years behind in discovered tricks and exploits.
Errrrr....
hero of the day wrote:
Saturn's run is actually much superior to the real time any% run on a technical level. He actually saves frames in every single room of the run. The only and I mean only reason he did not crush the real time run was because he went for the plasma beam at the very end of the run and lost a lot of real-time. Because of this I cannot endorse removing the technically superior run, and I cannot endorse removing the technically faster real-time run. They should both remain until a single run beats them both.
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.
Saturn's run is actually much superior to the real time any% run on a technical level. He actually saves frames in every single room of the run. The only and I mean only reason he did not crush the real time run was because he went for the plasma beam at the very end of the run and lost a lot of real-time. Because of this I cannot endorse removing the technically superior run, and I cannot endorse removing the technically faster real-time run. They should both remain until a single run beats them both.
Precisely. They can both be obsoleted by a single run, and therefore they're the same branch.
So either (a) the goal of this branch is pure speed, and the "technically superior" run should be marked as obsolete because it's slower; or (b) the goal of this branch is technical quality and entertainment, and the "technically faster" run should be marked as obsolete because it's lower in quality.
Either way, there's no point in having have two seperate branch for two different ways of measuring speed.
I was wondering about the fact that you called the ingame time run "several years behind". How can it be so if it's "much superior" over the current branchless run?
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.
