It is actually an interesting version of Donkey Kong that I explain better in my 100% run.
It is important to note that the only difference between this game and the "original" NES Donkey kong is the 2nd level was added (making it 4 levels instead of 3). The other 3 levels are identical, and compared to the published movie this TAS is equally fast.
turska: Donkey Kong: Original Edition is official NES software originally released in 2010 included a 25th anniversary Wii bundle. The game is likely an official romhack and not a prototype from the 1980s (details here).
As it is enhanced re-release that adds new content that is emulated accurately, running this ROM in a NES emulator is a valid game choice for submission. Most VC re-releases only contain minor changes (if any) that are inconsequential for a TAS; the vast majority of them would have no notable differences from the original releases. In the case of N64, inaccurate emulation with Mupen is also a concern. Donkey Kong: Original Edition is highly exceptional in this, and accepting TASing the ROM on a NES emulator does not set a precedent for TASing Virtual Console games in general.
Content-wise, Donkey Kong: Original edition adds the second level from the arcade version and an animation of Donkey Kong climbing up the ladder while carrying Pauline - the original NES Donkey Kong lacks these. This TAS represents a superset of NES Donkey Kong's content - levels 1, 3, and 4 are identical and equally fast to their DK NES counterparts.
While we allow different ports of games even in the Vault (such as [2727] SNES Classic Kong Complete by Fortranm in 02:12.76), two ports of the same game on the same system that result in outright identical TASes push this rule, and I don't think having TASes of both NES Donkey Kong and Donkey Kong: Original Edition published makes sense.
As DKOE is a mostly superior port, this TAS could obsolete NES DK; it has the second level, includes the animation of Donkey Kong climbing, and represents a superset of a NES DK TAS.
On the other hand, DKOE is highly obscure and narrowly released compared to NES Donkey Kong, which is the most famous port of the game - DKOE was initially only available in promotional tie-ins for four years since its initial release in 2010 with a Wii bundle, until 2014 when it was released on 3DS Virtual Console in Europe (here). Its status as an official romhack likely made decades after the original NES port decreases its historical value compared to initial speculation of it being a lost prototype.
Considering these factors, I am rejecting this TAS and ruling that for an any% TAS of Donkey Kong, the initial NES Donkey Kong is the preferred game version. For an "all items" TAS, Donkey Kong: Original Edition is preferred and shows off the added second level. Between DK NES any% and DKOE "all items", both any% and "all items" TASes of every stage (except for an any% of DKOE stage 2 which is exclusive to this submission) are represented on the site without any redundant publications.
Two different ports of Donkey Kong have appeared on Virtual Console. The first, released in 2006, is essentially a direct port of the NES version, while the second, entitled Donkey Kong Original Edition (ドンキーコング オリジナルエディション), attempted to adhere to the arcade version, and was pre-installed for the European release of the Mario 25th Anniversary limited edition red Wii in 2010.
WebNations/Sabih wrote:
+fsvgm777 never censoring anything.
Disables Comments and Ratings for the YouTube account.Something better for yourself and also others.
lol ninja edit :U
The NES is a relatively simple system to emulate, to the point that both Virtual Console and Bizhawk sync. You'd have to ask someone else for more info on it tho; that's all I've got
Joined: 8/14/2009
Posts: 4083
Location: The Netherlands
electricslide wrote:
This is not a remake.
Yes, it is a remake. Some 20+ years after the NES orginal.
You are grasping at wording, which is made clear by you separating my lines and omitting half of my second sentence just so you have a point to write.
electricslide wrote:
Except it's not as you go on to point out. It's got different stages and it's slower.
It's not "slower". The gameplay and game speed are the same, and the level times are identical as pointed out in the submission text.
electricslide wrote:
As such, since this game's content entirely supersedes
Is it faster or slower?
I said game content, not run content. And again, the gameplay is equally fast because it is identical to the original NES release barring some level additions.
electricslide wrote:
I guess we can expect to see every single NES publication to be 'superceded' by wii remakes. Sounds like fun.
How many NES games do you know with later ROM releases on Wii that add missing content? I can't think of many.
electricslide wrote:
Fact is - it's a Wii remake.
electricslide wrote:
It's never been released for the NES. How can it be an NES game when it's not released for it?
It is a NES ROM, released inside a NES emulator wrapper for the Wii and 3DS releases. Hence it's possible to TAS the game in a NES emulator in the first place.
And as others said, why would Nintendo go through the bother of coding in the new level in 6502 ASM in this day and age, unless they already had it lying around since the 1980s?
electricslide wrote:
Anty, could it be console verified on the NES?
Yes, by dumping the ROM to a NES cart it could be run on NES and verified. It has been done, in fact, if I recall correctly (with some other games)
http://www.youtube.com/Noxxa
<dwangoAC> This is a TAS (...). Not suitable for all audiences. May cause undesirable side-effects. May contain emulator abuse. Emulator may be abusive. This product contains glitches known to the state of California to cause egg defects.
<Masterjun> I'm just a guy arranging bits in a sequence which could potentially amuse other people looking at these bits
<adelikat> In Oregon Trail, I sacrificed my own family to save time. In Star trek, I killed helpless comrades in escape pods to save time. Here, I kill my allies to save time. I think I need help.
I'm citing facts.
This game was dumped from the WII version. It was never released on the NES.
It's a different game, with different levels.
It's not "slower". The gameplay and game speed are the same
It is in fact slower.
, and the level times are identical as pointed out in the submission text.
The level times are not identical because it doesn't have the same levels.
I said game content, not run content. And again, the gameplay is equally fast because it is identical to the original NES release barring some additions.
Those 'additions' make this a completely different game.
How many NES games do you know with later ROM releases on Wii that add missing content? I can't think of many.
Technically, this precedent would allow every single WII remake to stand in for it's NES game, to be published as an NES game, without being faster and using the inputs of the previous NES tas.
It wouldn't have anything indicating that it's, in actuality, a WII game.
This is a bad precedent to set.
It is a NES ROM
It is not. It's dumped from the WII version.
, released inside a NES emulator wrapper for the Wii and 3DS releases.
Ok, which is why it's a WII game and not an nes game.
Hence it's possible to TAS the game in a NES emulator in the first place.
How is this different from any other Wii remake?
And as others said, why would Nintendo go through the bother of coding in the new level in 6502 ASM in this day and age, unless they already had it lying around since the 1980s?
Is it possible that they could have made other coding changes in 25 years to clean it up and cut out loopholes and programming errors?
Yes, by dumping the ROM to a NES cart it could be run on NES and verified. It has been done, in fact, if I recall correctly.
Well then. Can you please show me where it's been done?
I already mentioned that but your selective mind continued to bring up the 3DS version.
I brought up the 3DS version to prove that it's a WII game, originally released on the WII and is in fact a WII remake.
Claiming it is an NES game is making an assumption that no other programming changes have been made in 25 years for the WII release.
This is a bad assumption to make, IMO. I'm concerned about this, and I'm a bit surprised that everyone seems to willingly go along with, "well of course they wouldn't change it".
Do we know this?
Possible? Yes. But since you keep asking us for proof, please give us an example.
You claim that:
1, this is console verifiable on the NES.
2, this is the same cart as the 1985 NES version and that no other changes, save adding a level have been done.
In order to obsolete, you need to show that both are in fact true.
If you can't then this shouldn't obsolete, because you've not shown that you're working within the same parameters as Phil.
Emulator Coder, Site Developer, Site Owner, Expert player
(3600)
Joined: 11/3/2004
Posts: 4739
Location: Tennessee
electricslide wrote:
Claiming it is an NES game is making an assumption that no other programming changes have been made in 25 years for the WII release.
I personally have not made this assumption. I did my homework, and drew this conclusion.
Here are a few details:
1) This is a valid NES rom, in every way, there's nothing "Wii" about it, it is a NES game, that plays in a NES emulator
2) The Ram Addresses are identical to its counter part (very handy for making a TAS)
3) Take a look at the two games in the PPU Viewer or Nametable viewer, same stuff in the same addresses.
4) The physics are the same, as is the frame timing. As you said it is "just copied inputs", implying that the same input has the same effect.
Are there differences between this version and the one released for the NES? Yes.
In addition to a new level, the cart itself changed. The original was released on a NROM board. This is the cheapest board to make since to make since it does not contain on board chips to extend the limited NES capabilities. It uses the 32kb of PRG and 8kb of CHR rom.
The new rom uses MMC1 which at the time of the NES release would have been more expensive, since it has extra chips to store more PRG and/or CHR data. 3 levels fit nicely on NROM, but you can't cram in a 4th. It is logical to think that this was a business decision to gut a level to fit on a cheaper board. When releasing this NES game as a VC Wii game, these types of considerations aren't an issue. It isn't more expensive to use a different board when the board itself is emulated. So it is only logical to release the NES game as it was originally intended before it was gutted.
I'm not the person to ask. I'm just repeating things that have already been said.
Please don't say I said it's the same exact game besides adding a level, when I didn't, though. You made the claim that additional changes were made, so back it up.
Joined: 8/14/2009
Posts: 4083
Location: The Netherlands
electricslide wrote:
It's a different game, with different levels.
It has an added level. The rest is identical.
electricslide wrote:
It is in fact slower.
No, the speed is the same. The submission states as much. If you want to disagree on this, come with proof or facts or something rather than just having us going in circles of "no it's not".
electricslide wrote:
The level times are not identical because it doesn't have the same levels.
Three of four levels are exactly the same, and as such can be compared, and those times are indeed identical.
electricslide wrote:
Technically, this precedent would allow every single WII remake to stand in for it's NES game, to be published as an NES game, without being faster and using the inputs of the previous NES tas.
It wouldn't have anything indicating that it's, in actuality, a WII game.
This is a bad precedent to set.
What remakes are you talking about? If you're talking about Virtual Console releases, those are typically just literally the same ROM as the NES game (in an emulator wrapper), and even if they aren't, they don't have any additions that justify publication unlike this game.
electricslide wrote:
It is a NES ROM
It is not. It's dumped from the WII version.
It is still a NES ROM. The Wii release literally consists of just a NES ROM and a NES emulator that runs it.
electricslide wrote:
Ok, which is why it's a WII game and not an nes game.
The Wii release is a Wii game. What underlies it is a NES game. You can't call the underlying ROM a Wii game, because that exact same ROM is also in a non-Wii release.
electricslide wrote:
How is this different from any other Wii remake?
I'm still curious to know what other Wii remakes you are talking about. If you mean VC, see above.
electricslide wrote:
Is it possible that they could have made other coding changes in 25 years to clean it up and cut out loopholes and programming errors?
Considering it still has exactly the same glitches as the NES release, that seems very unlikely, and is also unfounded.
electricslide wrote:
Well then. Can you please show me where it's been done?
I can't find any concrete examples, but there are clear post references to writing ROMs on NES carts by true. For this game, it'd be no different.
http://www.youtube.com/Noxxa
<dwangoAC> This is a TAS (...). Not suitable for all audiences. May cause undesirable side-effects. May contain emulator abuse. Emulator may be abusive. This product contains glitches known to the state of California to cause egg defects.
<Masterjun> I'm just a guy arranging bits in a sequence which could potentially amuse other people looking at these bits
<adelikat> In Oregon Trail, I sacrificed my own family to save time. In Star trek, I killed helpless comrades in escape pods to save time. Here, I kill my allies to save time. I think I need help.
In addition to a new level, the cart itself changed. The original was released on a NROM board. This is the cheapest board to make since to make since it does not contain on board chips to extend the limited NES capabilities. It uses the 32kb of PRG and 8kb of CHR rom.
The new rom uses MMC1 which at the time of the NES release would have been more expensive, since it has extra chips to store more PRG and/or CHR data. 3 levels fit nicely on NROM, but you can't cram in a 4th. It is logical to think that this was a business decision to gut a level to fit on a cheaper board. When releasing this NES game as a VC Wii game, these types of considerations aren't an issue. It isn't more expensive to use a different board when the board itself is emulated. So it is only logical to release the NES game as it was originally intended before it was
gutted
Ok, that all makes sense to me. From an economic standpoint it makes sense they would do things this way. It also makes sense to me that if they wanted to 'release the game as they wanted to sans 1985 memory restrictions', that they would clean things up before Wii release.
I just think a tidier solution is to publish this as a different game. Because, really, in the end these are two different versions, published at different times that have significant differences in content. This isn't a pixel or two, this is a quarter of the game.
I'm not talking so much timing, but, say, memory access issues, etc. Some of the things that have been found in other games. Having 25 years to go back means they can rework things while not changing the gameplay.
It might not even be anything that we've found. That's the problem. Even if it wasn't shown that there were differences, that doesn't mean they don't exist.
Later on, if they were found and something was done this would be a problem. One would not work for the other.
because that exact same ROM is also in a non-Wii release.
But it's not the 'exact same rom'. That's my point, Mothrayas.
There is no NES release of this game. There's a WII release and the 3DS release. There are significant additions to the game that make it different. This is why this game is being TASed because if there weren't significant differences there would be no point.
This is also why it should not obsolete, because these are different games. Arguing 'beta' whatever, that's a sign to me that yes, these are different games. Different versions with different content.
It's also really not fair to Phil because again, most of the content is still his, and his sections have not been improved. If it were improved, different story, but it's not.
Emulator Coder, Site Developer, Site Owner, Expert player
(3600)
Joined: 11/3/2004
Posts: 4739
Location: Tennessee
electricslide wrote:
Having 25 years to go back means they can rework things while not changing the gameplay.
It might not even be anything that we've found. That's the problem. Even if it wasn't shown that there were differences, that doesn't mean they don't exist.
Sure, I guess this is all theoretically true. But I find that unlikely if the same input has the same effect, and the ram values are the same, and the physics, and I encountered no differences. Possible, but unlikely.
Also, from a practical standpoint, all I can say is..This is Donkey Kong, man. What is there to fix up? Why would they bother? What "unknown differences" could possibly happen that would affect gameplay on a short simple game? Seems like you are arguing the concept, not the actual situation.
Joined: 8/14/2009
Posts: 4083
Location: The Netherlands
electricslide wrote:
because that exact same ROM is also in a non-Wii release.
But it's not the 'exact same rom'. That's my point, Mothrayas.
You are missing the point of that line - I was comparing the Wii and 3DS releases with each other, which both contain the exact same (this) NES ROM. Obviously it's not the exact same ROM as the NES original.
electricslide wrote:
There is no NES release of this game. There's a WII release and the 3DS release. There are significant additions to the game that make it different. This is why this game is being TASed because if there weren't significant differences there would be no point.
This is also why it should not obsolete, because these are different games. Arguing 'beta' whatever, that's a sign to me that yes, these are different games. Different versions with different content.
The reason we're considering obsoletion is because this version's content completely overlaps the NES release's content. There is literally nothing that the NES run does that this run doesn't also do. The NES run is, therefore, technically redundant.
electricslide wrote:
It's also really not fair to Phil because again, most of the content is still his, and his sections have not been improved. If it were improved, different story, but it's not.
This is a different argument - albeit it is one that is worth arguing. I agree that it is not fair to Phil if his movie is just obsoleted without an improvement. Perhaps give Phil a coauthor position or something, so that he still retains some credit for the record. Or perhaps just don't obsolete at all.
http://www.youtube.com/Noxxa
<dwangoAC> This is a TAS (...). Not suitable for all audiences. May cause undesirable side-effects. May contain emulator abuse. Emulator may be abusive. This product contains glitches known to the state of California to cause egg defects.
<Masterjun> I'm just a guy arranging bits in a sequence which could potentially amuse other people looking at these bits
<adelikat> In Oregon Trail, I sacrificed my own family to save time. In Star trek, I killed helpless comrades in escape pods to save time. Here, I kill my allies to save time. I think I need help.
I agree that it's not enough to TAS a "better version" without time improvement to erase the current author's name. So even if there's no input by Phil here, co-authoring him is very fair. It's not a run obsoletion, it's a game obsoletion, the author that had no choice back then should not get the blame by erasing his name like that.
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 also agree with the three people above. The entirety of Phil's movie is contained in adelikat's run; he should be added as co-author if his run's going to be obsoleted.
The entirety of Phil's movie is contained in adelikat's run; he should be added as co-author if his run's going to be obsoleted.
His run is not contained. But the fact that he's still the record holder means he needs to get credited too.
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, Site Developer, Site Owner, Expert player
(3600)
Joined: 11/3/2004
Posts: 4739
Location: Tennessee
I don't agree that anyone should be a co-author of my run. I did this run myself, I did not get assistance from anyone (had I, it would have been submitted accordingly).
I also didn't TAS the game that Phil is the "record holder" of. Nor did I attempt to obsolete his movie, I TASed a different version of this game; a version that does not have a current record holder.
I also didn't TAS the game that Phil is the "record holder" of.
Then obsoletion (the most reasonable solution here) loses its point to me.
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.
To reiterate what I said earlier in IRC:
To anyone looking up the original NES version (so not this one) on the site, having this run obsolete it means they won't be able to find a current TAS of it. Which is, of course, not a situation we want.
And something I didn't say in IRC:
Should you decide for obsoletion (you shouldn't), I'd argue against co-authorship. We don't do retroactive rejections, but there have been cases where an existing run was deemed "bad goal choice" (or something similar) in hindsight, and as such a new run was made to obsolete it, without any mention of the previously existing run (i.e. co-authorship). In my opinion, this would be a similar case, with the "rejection" reason being bad game choice.
