I'm making a 30fps version at a lower bitrate and I'll also make a lower quality version (320x240 or whatever) as well. but I'll be away till saturday so I wouldn't expect those versions till then. Sorry.
As has been mentioned, it's probably your computer that can't sync the two together.
Thanks for pointing that out!
I re-watched the same video on a newer and more up-to-spec computer and the audio/video syncs fine.
Excellent quality in TAS and encoding!
Joined: 11/11/2006
Posts: 1235
Location: United Kingdom
Just watched the encode (thanks bkDJ). I especially liked the way you got the nessy creature star. Pretty nice run in general.
I really don't like the idea of putting it as a link on the 0-star movie page permenently by the way.
<adelikat> I am annoyed at my irc statements ending up in forums & sigs
Joined: 11/11/2006
Posts: 1235
Location: United Kingdom
Until when? That was my point. All it really shows now is the fastest way to get 16 stars. While it does so most excellently, why not watch a 70-star or 120-star run? Sure they are long, but in that case why limit it to 16 stars anymore? why not 20/30/40? those are pretty short.
<adelikat> I am annoyed at my irc statements ending up in forums & sigs
Because 16 stars is not only the current console minimum, but was also the minimum in this game for so long that most people are more familiar with 16 star completion than 1 or 0 star completion?
Joined: 11/11/2006
Posts: 1235
Location: United Kingdom
Swordless Link wrote:
Because 16 stars is not only the current console minimum
I'm not sure why this is important apart from comparing to non-assisted runs (which is pretty hard to do anyway)...
Swordless Link wrote:
but was also the minimum in this game for so long that most people are more familiar with 16 star completion than 1 or 0 star completion
Familiarity is grounds for a standard? Don't you want to show more of the game off without making the run too long? I'm not seeing any real reasons other than "we've been doing it for a while now but only because of ignorance, so we might as well continue".
<adelikat> I am annoyed at my irc statements ending up in forums & sigs
Familiarity is grounds for a standard? Don't you want to show more of the game off without making the run too long?
That sounds ideal, but in reality it will always be in relation to this game
"Too short, doesn't show enough of the game"
"Too long, boring and repetitive"
"Arbitary"
So dammed if you do, dammed if you don't culture arises.
Then make an arbitrary definition/category that the majority agrees on, with clear reasoning. 'Simple'.
I already made one. I believe I stated it in an earlier post. "No step BLJ".
No BLJ should be no BLJ. At all.
Either use it or don't. Would people accept not using a time saving glitch (such as say, zipping in Mega Man) sometimes because the author doesn't feel like it in another game?
No lobby glitching for 70 star runs.
A non-arbitrary category for 16 star runs is difficult to come up with though.. But there's a good reason to still accept them (as concept demos?) and that is to compare the TAS runs to normal speed runs.
Well I made a high-resolution texture, lower bitrate version of Swordless Link's 16 Star run for anyone who wants it. The audio/video stays in sync for people with slower computers as well
640x480 84mb
Comicalflop wrote:
I don't recommend HISSing at parties though, people will think you're a snake.
I don't like the idea of BLJ-less 70 star runs; BLJ's are entertaining. 0 and 120 star runs should be the only ones accepted on this site. 16 star runs are good for entertainment purposes, but shouldn't be accepted, because the goal is now arbitrary.
(didn't read the whole discussion)
while i agree that 0-star and 120 star runs are the only ones that should be accepted, i found the idea of accepting 16-star runs as a concept demo to be very interesting. since a concept demo is (to my knowledge) meant to give people an understanding of what a TAS is, making a tas of the console minimum would be great for that, because real-time players are familiar with it, and are able to see just how different the optimization is.
i typed this in a hurry,so i don't know how well i worded it. i'll come back and clean it up if anyone complains.
Joined: 5/2/2006
Posts: 1020
Location: Boulder, CO
Kuwaga wrote:
... is to compare the TAS runs to normal speed runs.
That really is not the point of this site, and it cheapens what is trying to be done here to suggest that it is.
Look, 70 stars is not any more arbitrary then countless other already published runs. "glitchless" is often well accepted.
... is to compare the TAS runs to normal speed runs.
That really is not the point of this site, and it cheapens what is trying to be done here to suggest that it is.
Look, 70 stars is not any more arbitrary then countless other already published runs. "glitchless" is often well accepted.
It's not the core point of the site which is why it has a concept demo section. I would probably vote no or meh on a 70 star run because there is already a published 120 star run and those runs would be >50% the same.
The least arbitrary restriction for 70 star runs I can come up with is 'no lobby glitching', which is what I've posted. That doesn't mean though that I'm in favour of such runs.
16 star run as a concept demo makes perfect sense to me though, for reasons already stated and I don't see how suggesting that cheapens (?) anything.
