Submission Text Full Submission Page
This run is definitely not with the intention of obsoleting the published SMB any% TAS! This movie aims to present what the fastest and the best SMB PAL TAS would look like. It improves MUGG's submission for 66 frames, and tubby's TAS for 46 frames.
The Europe version of SMB is an official game run in PAL mode. The physics are almost identical, but the speed values are set differently, causing more potential glitches. TASes on this version are only faster due to a different version of flagpole glitch, which allows Mario to skip the castles without the help of other enemies or entering the ground.

New Trick: Falling into the Ground

It's probably no secret that Mario can sometimes fall into the ground after stomping on an enemy in SMB Europe version, but to do this without the help of anything but a lift is something new. The lift is still required for manipulating Y position before jumping. This trick is used in 1-2, saving 18 frames (a frame rule).

Time Saver: Faster Acceleration

It's faster to accelerate on the floor in this version. This simple new way of acceleration saves 18 frames in 8-3, and 10 frames in 8-4 (along with other arrangements).
This run also differs from the normal SMB any% TAS on details. For example, only in this TAS is Mario able to kick some shells in 8-1, and to show the 1-UP mushroom in 8-2, to walljump on the higher floor and to swim through the ceiling in 8-4.
I'm submitting it here mostly to show people what the best SMB PAL TAS would look like, regardless of whether it has reached TASVideos' standard for publication.

Nach: Let me start off by saying that judging this was one of the most difficult to judge TASs. The verdict I'm presenting here is based off of the current rules and knowledge I have regarding this run. It is subject to be revisited if anything significant changes. It should also be noted that no matter what the decision here is, a large chunk of people will not be happy with it. I will however lay out some additional info not discussed in the thread which factored into my decision.
Before I dive in, let me also iterate that this was an entertaining run, and there is little to dispute that, certainly by the audience at large.

NTSC vs. PAL theory

In terms of PAL games in general, different platforms, different companies, and different games all exhibit varying levels of quality. Obviously if a PAL game is the original then it can be easily considered the main version of a game. For some platforms, there are also no difference game-wise if something is running in NTSC or PAL mode. However, for platforms designed to be timed and framed into old television sets, there are important differences between the two modes.
Once there is a difference between the two, games designed for NTSC which are not modified for PAL generally exhibit some very weird behavior. As one example, I've seen fighting games where the key combos to execute various moves barely work when playing in PAL mode, the timing is altered enough that the game doesn't recognize the key presses the same way. As many PAL ports are like this in some fashion, it's ample reason to reject them, Just play the original which works normally.

Game variants on TASVideos

When we look at PAL ports, we must understand that these games are adaptions or variants of the original. Although there are many kinds of variants. Some variants are ports to a later platform. One kind of variant such as those seen in Mario Bros. has completely different levels (even though all the levels are repetitive). Some variants like those in the Street Fighter 2 series are the same game but with changes with varying levels of importance. Castlevania II: Belmont's Revenge exists in two variants where the entire game is the same, except one has a boomerang as a secondary weapon, and the other has a throw-able ax. The Pokémon series has game variants at each generation, generally limited to monster selection, where a dozen out of 150+ are different (which may not differ at all with certain glitches exploited), but barely has any affect on how a well planned run plays. Other differences are ports from the NES to SNES to Gameboy Advance and so on. The deciding factor in how these are dealt with on the site always boils down to how identical are the engines, and how unique and interesting is the gameplay that each variant offers over others.
Taking SMB2 as an example, the SNES variant adds on a save game feature which can be abused which can change the warped route considerably. Same for the Gameboy Advance variant, which further has other game changes. Due to these considerable changes in what one would see in a TAS for them, we have accepted them all.
In the case of Pokémon, since the engine/quality of the game between say Blue and Red is identical, and the observable changes in a TAS are insignificant, any new record with one will always obsolete the other.
In the case of various Street Fighter games, there is a large similarity to the TASs being produced. The audience at large doesn't notice much other than some Street Fighter characters are more or less beating up the same set of Street Fighter characters, using many of the same moves. In these kinds of cases, we have the best version of the game obsolete the others. Best version often is based on figuring out which has the broadest set of move possibilities, most fluid version of the fighting engine, and so on.
We haven't had multiple variants of Castlevania II: Belmont's Revenge submitted yet, but if someone submits a boomerang heavy run with sizable differences from the existing ax run, I can see accepting them side by side. It's sort of like accepting various X and Zero runs side by side for the later Megaman X PSX games (note: I rejected some MMX5 runs for being too similar to others).
In terms of Mario Bros. since a full variety run of levels while similar is quite different, we have accepted both.

NTSC vs. PAL in practice

If a PAL port offered the exact same engine/quality as the original, it could make sense to have it obsolete the original (and this could make sense to occur in games that are not meant for old television sets). If a PAL port offers a somewhat different engine, the question becomes whether it deserves to be added to the list of accepted variants alongside the original. The answer to that hinges on do the engine differences necessitate very different ways to play the game, and do those differences register with the audience at large. In most cases, PAL runs should be rejected, but based on the various aforementioned criteria, there are cases where PAL runs will definitely be accepted.
Nintendo unlike other companies has always aimed to do a decent job porting NTSC games to PAL. Nintendo is often one of the only companies where you will see the PAL game having various timings corrected to ensure that the game-play closely matches that of the NTSC version. Nintendo is often one of the only companies that adjusts the resolution of the displayed game to match the different resolution PAL televisions are capable of. Nintendo often also does some localization, converting currency, weight, and measurements to be those used locally. The attention to detail by Nintendo in PAL porting started with early NES games, and improved as Nintendo ported more and more and with newer platforms.

This game in particular

For its time in history and in comparison to a bunch of other early NES PAL games, Super Mario Bros. PAL is actually a relatively decent port (although maintains several noticeable differences from the NTSC original in terms of movement and other factors). Since the game is non-original but a decent port (relatively during its debut), it definitely qualifies for consideration as to whether it should be published alongside the original as another game variant.
This game happens to also be a game I'm quite familiar with. I played many of its variants on NES (since the 80s!), SNES, and Gameboy Color. I also dabbled in its programming and made various hacks on NES and SNES versions. In my opinion, I find this game qualifies for having many branches made of it. I can also see the SNES variant qualifies for certain branches as an acceptable TAS to show off a run without as many glitches being possible, and the Gameboy Color variant for some of its challenges that earlier versions do not offer. The question of course is, is there value in this PAL variant that we have lacking from all our other variants and branches thereof?
The first thing I want to shoot down is the idea that SMB PAL is faster than SMB NTSC. There are quite a few parts of the game that are non-playable. These include score countdown, castle animations, pipe transitions, 1-2, 2-2, 4-2, and 7-2 initial cut screens, level banners, vine climbing, and Bowser drowning to our princess is in another castle. When comparing across versions we need to take all this into account and figure out actual game-play time. NES SMB processes the non-playable segments of the games in multiples of 21 frames and 18 frames for NTSC and PAL respectively. Nintendo altered the number from 21 to 18 because 21/60 and 18/50 is 0.35 and 0.36, which should provide a close gaming experience on the port. In actuality, using more precise numbers, NTSC has frames which are ~0.0166 seconds long, and PAL ~0.0199 seconds. This means the non-playable parts are processed in multiples of ~0.3494 seconds and ~0.3599 seconds. Since these non-playable segments run on boundaries that are multiples of these, it means that the NTSC version allows slightly more time to get in activity before the game will round upwards. Conversely, if you just went a bit over a multiple, the PAL version will proceed to the next multiple sooner.
In order to get a better handle on this, I went to time the actual playable segments between the fastest NTSC and this PAL run (note, there may be rounding errors, and it's possible I was a frame off either way for some calculations):
LevelNTSCPAL
1-112.230512.083
1-221.58321.15
4-123.98323.967
4-217.949517.567
8-140.082540.233
8-224.865523.383
8-322.698522.767
8-432.527532.601
Total195.92193.751
Based on this NTSC is slower by ~2.169 seconds (about 130 frames in NTSC). However, there is a flaw with this logic. These runs aim for overall fastest real time, and thereby performs some actions which are slightly slower in the playable segments in order to abuse how the non-playable part is played as well as avoid 3 or 6 castle fireworks animations. However, the NTSC run goes significantly out of its way in 8-2 to abuse this trade off, by ~2.379 seconds in my calculation. If the run would discount non-playable segments to achieve the fastest possible any-variant time, we'd instead be looking at:
LevelNTSCPAL
8-222.486523.383
Total193.541193.751
In this case, the NTSC version is faster by 0.21 seconds (about a dozen frames)!
NTSC improves further if we decide that the mid-level non-playable segments must be included in 1-1, because unlike other levels, going through that here is a decision that can be avoided. In that case the 1-1 times become:
LevelNTSCPAL
1-118.165518.433
Gaining the NTSC run an additional 0.415 seconds (about 25 frames). All in all, PAL being necessarily faster in terms of game-play is doubtful.

Judgment

Armed with all the aforementioned information, how do we look at this? I decided to ask other judges for their opinions for the different possibilities, raised a few counterpoints with them, then assessed how they changed their opinion. I will not list their names because I should be the sole person receiving any fallout for the judgment on this run. What follows is how I characterize the opinions they conveyed to me.
Before I mentioned (counter)points:
JudgeObsoleteNew VariantReject
AAbsurdYes!No
BAbsurdYesMaybe
CYesNo way!Maybe
DAbsurdYes!No
After:
JudgeObsoleteNew VariantReject
BAbsurdNo way!Yes!
CMaybeNo way!Yes
DAbsurdMaybeYes
EAbsurdNoYes!
(One judge was unique in each group)
When I initially saw this run, knowing the differences right off the bat between variants and our aims, it seemed clear to me that obsoletion was lunacy. However my knee-jerk reaction was that I love this run, the engine is a bit different, let's just accept this as another variant. However, those are not good reasons to accept something, we have rules.
Thinking about how this run actually differs from the NTSC when viewing, it's not by much. More than that, there's nothing that really necessitates a difference. Just because one run decided to randomly jump at some point does not make it different from a run which does not. It has to be different as a branch in a significant manner, not just how it was played back in a particular run or mere moments of it. The new glitch, while new, does not look so different going through the wall than going through the wall otherwise. Also, I'm not convinced every run of this PAL branch would require this glitch being abused. So looking at changes across the run, they seem minor, and 4/5 judges I spoke to are now in favor of rejecting.
After assessing everything yesterday for one last time, I was conflicted on what to do. After sleeping on it, seeing no new convincing posts one way or the other, and considering the different factors listed above further, one side in my mind now slightly outweighs the other. In conclusion, while some PAL games are acceptable, and other branches for SMB PAL may be acceptable, this TAS does not seem to be acceptable with what we know right now and how we handle these sorts of things. Rejecting.

Nach: Since some people had a hard time following the above points, I put together a decision tree.

Nach: The last judge (Judge A) has since wrote back to me that in light of additional data/(counter)points, they now also favor rejection.

Summary

Nach: When we accept improvements across game versions, we only do so when there are actual improvements in the game-play by the player(s). The quality of the existing published NTSC run and this submission are practically the same. This submission did not improve upon the existing NTSC publication in any meaningful way. All time-related improvements are due to subtle version differences that the player has no control over. Since there is no improvement upon the existing publication once the version differences are factored out, this submission is not considered an improvement.
The game-play in this submission is similar to existing publications, and there does not seem to be substantial differences to warrant this submission to be published alongside them. After speaking to five judges regarding the similarities, they are all in favor of rejection. Rejecting.

Samsara: Disregard that, let's test Playground!
Samsara: Disregard that test, let's test it properly this time without accidentally using senior level permissions! ._.

1 2
11 12 13
Emulator Coder, Experienced Forum User
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
MrWint wrote:
However, I'm afraid the information the ruling is based upon is wrong, and it may have had an adverse impact on the verdict.
Nothing you contented in the rest of your post was actually a crucial point in the judgment, so nothing it was based on is wrong. Thank you however for your updated more accurate tables, it is useful for those that care about this.
MrWint wrote:
And the only reason it is even that close overall is because of the water section in 8-4, PAL is significantly slower while walking or swimming (they used a factor of 7/6 instead of 6/5). The ruling misrepresents the facts by how they display the data.
All the judge notes did was call attention to certain details that NO ONE seemed to pay any attention too during the lengthy one month discussion that went on prior to then.
MrWint wrote:
The reason it is relevant, the reason it was probably included in the ruling to begin with, is that it makes the decision much less defensible.
The primary reason it was included was to address many different topics that were discussed in this thread, and the level that they were or were not looked into, whether or not in the end the point was relevant or not. This is the same reason remarks regarding entertainment or rule changes were included. The secondary reason was to show there was a disparity between the two games and runs thereof that is beyond a new kind of glitch being possible or faster music. Your remarks regarding walking and swimming further bolster the evidence of this disparity.
MrWint wrote:
It demonstably convinced other judges into changing their opinion.
None of the other judges had seen any numbers I came up with prior to me posting the judgement. The numbers didn't have anything to do with how they were convinced either. Nor were numbers even relevant to any point any judge thought of except for one of them. This was also already mentioned in this thread.
MrWint wrote:
It is faster than the currently published run no matter how you slice it, and also well-liked. It has been rejected because it is apparently too different to allow obsoletion, but simultaneously too similar to warrant its own category (source: decision tree). This is a middle ground I don't think should exist, at least not for a high-profile game like SMB.
Source is also the judge notes. The staff isn't entirely thrilled with this middle ground, which is exactly why there is a discussion regarding rule changes going on right now.
MrWint wrote:
And the decision relies heavily on the "original" vs. "non-original" distinction, which I don't understand at all. Whether or not something was on the market first has no relevance by itself. Actual possibly valid reasons are usually only results of this fact, like when the original was significantly more popular than later versions, or when later versions were poorly made compared to the original. It'd be great to get some elaboration on this point.
There were multiple elaborations on this point in this thread. I'm not going to repeat them over and over.
MrWint wrote:
The way it stands now it sounds like a handwavy way to justify a biased opinion about PAL games being intrinsically inferior due to being "not the original". The way Nach describes it as "Having a non-original game replace a perfectly valid original seemed lunacy to me, [...]" suggests that not much thought went into why that would be the case.
Instead of attacking me claiming not much thought went into the decision (which I spent over a month weighing and obtaining positions from the other judges), or my opinion of PAL which I laid out in the judge notes which is contrary to your conclusion regarding my opinion, why not consider that you yourself may be a bit biased because of the game or the effort you put into it.
MrWint wrote:
Being the original doesn't make it better by itself.
adelikat provided an argument for why it does, see some of my earlier posts. Also, whether it's better or not isn't really grounds whether it should obsolete another. I think Super Mario All-Stars is better, should it obsolete everything?
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.
Experienced Forum User
Joined: 5/23/2014
Posts: 162
"Having a non-original game replace a perfectly valid original seemed lunacy to me, [...]" is not something an unbiased judge should be saying. Let me finish including these developments. I worked two 11 hour days this weekend, so my apologies on not having a reply sooner.
Experienced Forum User, Site Admin, Skilled player (1023)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 10644
Location: RU
NES TAS of 2011
I finally got a note from MrWint resolving my main question: Does SMB PAL even have that unique supposedly noticeable glitch that's not present in NTSC and saves most of the time. For the entire thread I was sure that it was true, but I apparently confused 2 things: floor clip (that's actually unique and saves some frames) and flagpole glitch difference, that seems to save most of the time, as the submission notes indicate. And the third thing that saves time is the nature of gameplay. Floor clip does what Nach described: it gets past the same wall as NTSC, just a bit differently. Flagpole difference simplifies the setup, so the only visual difference in the main timesaver is the lack of bullets. I looked at my comparisons again: PAL x NTSC and HappyLee x MrWint, and failed to see the clear breaking difference that makes this run entirely unique. It's basically not the unique glitches that provide conceptually new content, it's the difference in the existing tricks that does conceptually similar thing a bit differently. So my original impression about this "clear to everyone" difference in this submission appears to have been false from the start. And if we abstract from the time-saver tricks and just take gameplay alone that's faster, that's where we need to clarify our rules. The reason to pick a PAL ROM version over NTSC should be superiority only IMO. Even if the two versions are similar in their quality, switching to PAL whenever it's faster feels like it reduces the challenge that has been traditional there and gives cheap time advantages. A similar thing happened to startup RAM state: we don't want to give this cheap method to everyone until we have a solid reason to. The solid reason being certain console possibility. Similarly, we should only switch to PAL if it's justified, makes sense, and in my earlier post I suggested these to check superiority: better media, gameplay, difficulty, challenge, glitches, routes. Some of these, or just one, but hugely superior. The decision to switch over should be a consensus between the viewers and the judges (and the author I guess?). Superiority here hasn't been proven, the PAL version is just shorter by its nature, and not the biggest part of the crowd wants obsoletion, and the judges disagree with it, so there is no consensus here. And for separate branches, I suggest what Radiant mentioned: when a new region version highlights unique gameplay aspects with relation to some goal or some branch, it might become part of that branch for the sake of diversity. Or it might become a new branch with no goal change if the difference is huge enough. I'll post these in the rules suggestion thread when I formulate it better.
I virtually judged this submission myself because of how much I disagreed with the decision. The biggest complaints were that it wasn't figured out what to do with all the support and how to properly counter it, as well as coming up with a new ruling based on full research. I've achieved my goals, so my mission here has been completed.
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. If TASing is meta-play, TASVideos Movie Rules are meta-meta-play!
Experienced Forum User, Experienced player (943)
Joined: 7/24/2013
Posts: 175
TAS of 2017Glitchy TAS of 2017Gameboy TAS of 2017Gameboy TASer of 2016Gameboy TAS of 2016Gameboy TASer of 2014Lucky TAS of 2014Gameboy TAS of 2014Lucky TAS of 2013
Sorry Nach, my intention was not to attack you personally, I may not have spent as much time as I should have formulating my points, so it ended up a rougher than I intended. I can only go on what you wrote though, and my comments reflect the impression it had on me (and possibly other people). When you write a long paragraph about debunking that PAL is faster then NTSC, and then present a "before" and "after" judge voting, the obvious conclusion is that you used the material you presented in previous paragraphs in your discussions. Similarly, if you write the cited piece without any clarification or context, people will read into it. I'm happy to hear that this is only a matter of miscommunication, and also that the rules this judgement was based on are being reassessed. You're also not innocent in this, though. I didn't gather this data yesterday, I have a spreadsheet with more detailed frame comparisons (also for the non-playable parts) which I created when investigating the feasibility of this run. Just because I didn't write about it doesn't mean nobody paid any attention. I just didn't think it was relevant to the conversation until you brought it up in the verdict, with numbers that didn't match mine. I still don't think it's a fair way to time the versions, but I think we're on the same page there. Regarding the original vs. non-original discussion, I admit I didn't read all posts in the thread in detail. I did however read all your responses (except the small-print you clearly don't want me to read), and you pointed to the Judging Guidelines, and gave an example of how acceleration changes difficulty in some sections. The difficulty argument is frankly debatable, you are assuming intention where none may exist. Just because you experienced the difficulty in NTSC a certain way, doesn't mean they specifically designed each jump to have a certain difficulty. Of course a certain progression was clearly intended, but not everything that's different is automatically "non-original". If I wanted to play devil's advocate here, I could claim that the PAL version is the true original, and they just didn't get it right the first time with the NTSC version, so they tweaked it intentionally for PAL. My point is not that this is unknowable (you could ask someone who worked on it), my point is it should be irrelevant, they are no more than differences, not making one version intriniscally better. You don't want to go out of your way tracking down what the actual developer intentions were for each section of each game to judge a submission for how true it is to the original intentions, and you can't assume just because it came out first that this must be the intention (if that were the case, no 1.1 versions would exist), so you can only see them as what they are, differences without any preference. If the differences are large enough, a new category might be warranted, and if they are not, obsoletion might be warranted. That is why I think the originality argument based on "indisputable authenticity" (source: Judge Guidelines) is flawed and not actually that indisputable. Don't get me wrong, I think there are valid reasons for sticking with the NTSC version (authenticity is just not necessarily one of them), and I agree with your ruling based on the current rules. My main goal with the submission I didn't end up having to do myself was to strike a blow for PAL games, and I'm happy to see the larger issue is being looked at more closely. I didn't disagree with the verdict, I disagreed with the way it was presented, which is what I think the main reason for the small outrage has been. I'm sure you thought about this thoroughly, but the judge's notes didn't reflect all of that properly.
Banned User
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
Swordless Link wrote:
This is a speedrun. The version that saves the most time should be published.
It's a speedrun of a different game. As in, the games are not identical. The difference in speed is not because one run is more optimized than the other, but because one is using a different game, with functional differences, than the other. Personally I find it a bit silly to argue "this TAS is faster than that other TAS, therefore it should obsolete the latter", when the TASes aren't even running the same game binary. Because they are not bit-by-bit the same game, if both deserve publication, they should be published side-by-side.
Experienced Forum User
Joined: 5/23/2014
Posts: 162
Before we even get into this, let's get things straight. You, Nach, an administrator for the site, are seriously attacking people for disagreeing with you, and yet expect to still be considered a fair judge? There is absolutely no need for that (especially considering I, despite my disagreements, was very civil and objective in debating the judgement and not anything related to you as a person. Thanks for showing the same respect back jerk) and honestly, if you hadn't been so damn determined to insult me, I wouldn't be coming after this judgement as much as I am. This post probably would not have been created. But you insist on being right, and you leave me no choice. Here we go. Let's start from the top of the judgement issued. Regardless of if it was part of the factors that led to the judgement or not, it was part of the judgement rendered and therefore needs to be considered (I have always been of the opinion that anything in the judgement text is relevant to the judgement and if you wish to say something that is not relevant to the judgement it should be made as a post in the thread, but this is apparently not how Nach operates, thus the need for this paragraph).
Judgment Text wrote:
In terms of PAL games in general, different platforms, different companies, and different games all exhibit varying levels of quality. Obviously if a PAL game is the original then it can be easily considered the main version of a game. For some platforms, there are also no difference game-wise if something is running in NTSC or PAL mode. However, for platforms designed to be timed and framed into old television sets, there are important differences between the two modes. Once there is a difference between the two, games designed for NTSC which are not modified for PAL generally exhibit some very weird behavior. As one example, I've seen fighting games where the key combos to execute various moves barely work when playing in PAL mode, the timing is altered enough that the game doesn't recognize the key presses the same way. As many PAL ports are like this in some fashion, it's ample reason to reject them, Just play the original which works normally.
This is not a theory, but a valid fact (for older consoles, including the NES), that PAL is a different framerate than NTSC. While games not modified for PAL do exhibit odd behavior, SMB is not one of them. Furthermore, modifying the game for PAL NES does not make it a port as you seem to insist- the NES is the NES, even if the framerate differs; it's not like the NES was only released in NTSC regions and those with the PAL standard got the SEN instead. Despite region differences, the NES is the NES, and while regions may be differentiated in the rules of TASVideos.org, nowhere does it mention that consoles are as well. Even if you presume the rules intended for regions are also applicable to consoles, that is firstly not stated, and secondly, cannot truly be considered and applied given that the judgement rendered is also relying on the specificities of the rules to arrive at a rejection, and thus using the specificities of the rules against it is a completely valid option. The only thing I can find on the judging rules and movie rules is regarding ensuring that you are using the correct settings regarding PAL or NTSC and obsoleting runs done with the wrong settings will result in a movie time adjustment for the movie aiming to be obsolete.
Movie Rules wrote:
The region settings must be correct If you are running an NTSC game ((U) or (J)), you must set your emulator to record in NTSC mode. Likewise, if you are running a PAL game ((E)), you must record your movie in PAL mode. Any other setting will get your movie promptly rejected. Note that such settings are enabled automatically in most emulators, but it's better to check before you start recording. If you are obsoleting a movie that was recorded with the wrong settings, that movie's completion time will be adjusted to account for the fact that PAL games run at 50 Hz and NTSC at 60 Hz. This rule only comes into effect on older console games that have badly programmed region lock-out.
((from http://tasvideos.org/MovieRules.html#RegionSettingsMustBeCorrect - while it is not relevant to the submission, it is the only thing I can find on the rules regarding differences between PAL and NTSC consoles, and specifically console and not game. If there is a rule specific to consoles regarding region differences that I am not seeing, please link me it in your reply.)) Regarding SMB, the game is modified appropriately (in most cases, MrWint's post demonstrates an exception) such that an autorejection is not applicable. Furthermore, the company which released the game was the same company that released the game for the NTSC regions, and, as stated below in the judgement, is a company which takes great care in ensuring that all regions it releases the game for end up having the gameplay be comparable with each other, despite framerate differences.
Judgment Text wrote:
When we look at PAL ports, we must understand that these games are adaptions or variants of the original.
You once again insist on calling it a port despite still being for the NES. As far as the rest of this paragraph, it is explanation of how past cases where a game has been different yet the same (not necessarially ports, since some are and some aren't) have been considered on TASVideos- relevant, but nothing in here needs to be addressed. Just note this paragraph addresses all types of differences with versions and games.
Judgment Text wrote:
If a PAL port offered the exact same engine/quality as the original, it could make sense to have it obsolete the original (and this could make sense to occur in games that are not meant for old television sets). If a PAL port offers a somewhat different engine, the question becomes whether it deserves to be added to the list of accepted variants alongside the original. The answer to that hinges on do the engine differences necessitate very different ways to play the game, and do those differences register with the audience at large. In most cases, PAL runs should be rejected, but based on the various aforementioned criteria, there are cases where PAL runs will definitely be accepted. <p>Nintendo unlike other companies has always aimed to do a decent job porting NTSC games to PAL. Nintendo is often one of the only companies where you will see the PAL game having various timings corrected to ensure that the game-play closely matches that of the NTSC version. Nintendo is often one of the only companies that adjusts the resolution of the displayed game to match the different resolution PAL televisions are capable of. Nintendo often also does some localization, converting currency, weight, and measurements to be those used locally. The attention to detail by Nintendo in PAL porting started with early NES games, and improved as Nintendo ported more and more and with newer platforms.
Aside from once again calling PAL a port (I'll stop pointing this out from now on, but this error is basically all throughout the judgement), the judgement actually starts to get into NES vs PAL on a practical level. And regarding the statement about a "somewhat different engine" (as is the case with SMB) (("If a PAL port offers a somewhat different engine, the question becomes whether it deserves to be added to the list of accepted variants alongside the original.")) the answer here should be an emphathetic "Yes", based on the quality of the adaptation. To follow on the next sentence you state, the engine differences do not necessitate very different ways to play the game (they aim to make the gameplay as identical as possible regardless of region) and the differences in the engine, made with that goal in mind, are extremely difficult to notice. Comparing the general movement of NTSC to PAL via the comparison encode created (credit to Feos, originally posted on Page 4 of 12) you notice very few differences. Note that this compares the TAS submitted by HappyLee vs the TAS already on TASVideos.org and does not compare the TAS submitted by MrWint. ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBRHMF8sHiU for reference) However the kicker here is actually in the first sentence. "If a PAL port offered the exact same engine/quality as the original, it could make sense to have it obsolete the original [...]" (emphasis added). Nintendo, as a game company, has always aimed to offer the exact same quality across all regions of the game it releases. I would argue they succeed, and your sentiments (based on the second paragraph here) seem to mirror mine. In regards to "engine/quality" the / is indicative of "or", thus the sentence reads "engine or quality" and while the engine may not be the same, the quality is (by your own sentiments), thus qualifying this run to obsolete NTSC based on the judgement text given (unless you, a site administrator, are not actually in line with site rules in your judgement text. But that would be embarassing to be pointed out to be wrong by a mere member, so you won't admit this).
Judgment Text wrote:
For its time in history and in comparison to a bunch of other early NES PAL games, Super Mario Bros. PAL is actually a relatively decent port (although maintains several noticeable differences from the NTSC original in terms of movement and other factors). Since the game is non-original but a decent port (relatively during its debut), it definitely qualifies for consideration as to whether it should be published alongside the original as another game variant. This game happens to also be a game I'm quite familiar with. I played many of its variants on NES (since the 80s!), SNES, and Gameboy Color. I also dabbled in its programming and made various hacks on NES and SNES versions. In my opinion, I find this game qualifies for having many branches made of it. I can also see the SNES variant qualifies for certain branches as an acceptable TAS to show off a run without as many glitches being possible, and the Gameboy Color variant for some of its challenges that earlier versions do not offer. The question of course is, is there value in this PAL variant that we have lacking from all our other variants and branches thereof?
I've got rather little to say on this pair of paragraphs. Aside from disagreeing on the "several noticeable differences", it acknowledges that the PAL version is a quality version and could be published alongside the NTSC run. The second paragraph addresses the various versions and ports of SMB and then questions if the PAL version (already stated to have been a quality version that can be published) has unique value against the whole slew of versions and ports of the game, thus drawing into doubt what has already been stated (that the PAL version could be published). Odd uncertainty visible here.
Judgment Text wrote:
The first thing I want to shoot down is the idea that SMB PAL is faster than SMB NTSC. There are quite a few parts of the game that are non-playable. These include score countdown, castle animations, pipe transitions, 1-2, 2-2, 4-2, and 7-2 initial cut screens, level banners, vine climbing, and Bowser drowning to our princess is in another castle. When comparing across versions we need to take all this into account and figure out actual game-play time. NES SMB processes the non-playable segments of the games in multiples of 21 frames and 18 frames for NTSC and PAL respectively. Nintendo altered the number from 21 to 18 because 21/60 and 18/50 is 0.35 and 0.36, which should provide a close gaming experience on the port. In actuality, using more precise numbers, NTSC has frames which are ~0.0166 seconds long, and PAL ~0.0199 seconds. This means the non-playable parts are processed in multiples of ~0.3494 seconds and ~0.3599 seconds. Since these non-playable segments run on boundaries that are multiples of these, it means that the NTSC version allows slightly more time to get in activity before the game will round upwards. Conversely, if you just went a bit over a multiple, the PAL version will proceed to the next multiple sooner.
We'll get to the actual comparisons next, but the initial statement is factually wrong. If you look at the submission times, the PAL TAS is, in fact, faster than the NTSC TAS. A possible rewording that would be at least possibly correct is that SMB PAL is slower when evaluating the gameplay segments alone. However, even this rewording ultimately ends up being incorrect when the numbers are properly evaluated. Furthermore, it is possible to sacrifice gameplay time to shorten the nongameplay time, and end with the same real time, due to the frame rule in SMB. Therefore, any gameplay time comparisons are ultimately subject to the fact that despite everything, you may end up with the "same" frame rule in the end, making gameplay vs nongameplay irrelevant in some cases. Next, we have the comments about what non-playable parts are included, and included in this list is "Bowser drowning to our princess is in another castle" which is after the end of input and thus isn't included in TASVideos.org timing at all. I would expect an administrator of the site, including one that has stated he is "quite familiar with" to realize when the timing of the TAS would end for a game. And yet this error was made. While errors like this one may not be deemed relevant by the judge to the decision ultimately rendered, they certainly show that the judgement is made by someone whose expertise is questionable at times (including this one, especially as this is not the only error in this judgement text), and for said judge to be an administrator of the site certainly does not paint things in a better light for Nach. As also discussed here, the alterations made for the game's transition to PAL framerates included modifying the frame rule. NTSC's frame rule is 21 frames and the game runs at 60 frames per second (roughly), or 0.35 second chunks (technically slightly less, but for some slight simplicity here we'll round to two decimal places), and the most you would wait is 20 frames (0.33 seconds) (assuming if you meet the frame rule exactly you move on "instantly"). PAL's frame rule is 18 frames and the game runs at 50 frames per second, or 0.36 second chunks, and the most you would wait is 17 frames (0.34 seconds). Therefore, to correct the final few sentences, PAL actually gets slightly more time per frame rule to sneak into the frame rule (0.36 seconds vs 0.35 seconds), while NTSC is actually faster to the next frame rule if you go barely over (0.33 seconds vs 0.34 seconds), and not the other way around, as is stated in the judgement text. Even if my presumption that you move on instantly if you meet the frame rule exactly is wrong, the second corrected statemet still holds true (0.35 seconds vs 0.36 seconds). Yet another error by Nach.
Judgment Text wrote:
In order to get a better handle on this, I went to time the actual playable segments between the fastest NTSC and this PAL run (note, there may be rounding errors, and it's possible I was a frame off either way for some calculations):
Area      |   NTSC  |  PAL    |   diff
          |   time  |  time   | -PAL +NTSC
----------+---------+---------+----------
1-1       | 12.2305 | 12.083  | -0.1475
1-2       | 21.583  | 21.15   | -0.433
4-1       | 23.983  | 23.967  | -0.016
4-2       | 17.9495 | 17.567  | -0.3825
8-1       | 40.0825 | 40.233  |  0.1505
8-2       | 24.8655 | 23.383  | -1.4825
8-3       | 22.6985 | 22.767  |  0.0685
8-4       | 32.5275 | 32.601  |  0.0735
----------+---------+---------+----------
Sum       | 195.92  | 193.751 | -2.169
((EDIT: Table reformatted to show properly)) Based on this NTSC is slower by ~2.169 seconds (about 130 frames in NTSC).
Let us compare this table vs the one by MrWint (albeit comparing MrWint's PAL TAS vs the NTSC TAS, but given that his TAS matches the submission by HappyLee in real time identically, the fact that the two are different and that his is potentially "faster" should end up being irrelevant).
Area      |                NTSC          |                PAL           |   diff
          | start    end #frames    time | start    end #frames    time |
----------+------------------------------+------------------------------+-------
1-1       |   196    564     368   6.123 |   172    475     303   6.059 | -0.064
1-1-sub   |   655    766     111   1.847 |   553    642      89   1.780 | -0.067
1-1-end   |  1048   1288     240   3.993 |   897   1093     196   3.919 | -0.074
1-2       |  2486   3766    1280  21.298 |  2060   3105    1045  20.897 | -0.401
4-1       |  3981   5424    1443  24.010 |  3291   4490    1199  23.977 | -0.034
4-2       |  6584   7172     588   9.784 |  5429   5905     476   9.519 | -0.265
4-2-end   |  7247   7723     476   7.920 |  5972   6363     391   7.819 | -0.101
8-1       |  7933  10344    2411  40.117 |  6553   8557    2004  40.074 | -0.043
8-2       | 10979  12475    1496  24.892 |  9038  10199    1161  23.217 | -1.676
8-3       | 13122  14489    1367  22.746 | 10821  11961    1140  22.797 |  0.051
8-4       | 15223  15747     524   8.719 | 12478  12913     435   8.699 | -0.020
8-4-cont1 | 15917  16184     267   4.443 | 13075  13293     218   4.359 | -0.083
8-4-cont2 | 16354  16549     195   3.245 | 13455  13610     155   3.100 | -0.145
8-4-water | 16719  17415     696  11.581 | 13722  14365     643  12.858 |  1.277
8-4-cont3 | 17589  17867     278   4.626 | 14530  14759     229   4.579 | -0.046
----------+------------------------------+------------------------------+-------
Sum       |                11740 195.345 |                 9684 193.653 | -1.692
Given the difference is a half second, I have my doubts as to the accuracy of the table given in the judgement text, and even if you discount rounding errors and errors by a frame, a half second is far too large a difference in this case. However, since I don't have an accurate table for HappyLee's TAS and that is the one that was compared in the judgement I cannot say where the errors were (I have no way to calculate these myself since I do not own either ROM personally). Furthermore, given the relative ease with which MrWint was able to describe when the player has control of Mario and the fact that, from this thread alone, I do not see Nach asking anywhere how to make a proper comparison, leads me to believe that there was very little care put into the comparison, which makes sense if you consider that, to Nach, it was an afterthought since "it's not relevant". Except it is, even if Nach does not believe so.
Judgment Text wrote:
However, there is a flaw with this logic. These runs aim for overall fastest real time, and thereby performs some actions which are slightly slower in the playable segments in order to abuse how the non-playable part is played as well as avoid 3 or 6 castle fireworks animations. However, the NTSC run goes significantly out of its way in 8-2 to abuse this trade off, by ~2.379 seconds in my calculation. If the run would discount non-playable segments to achieve the fastest possible any-variant time, we'd instead be looking at:
Area      |   NTSC  |  PAL    |   diff
          |   time  |  time   | -PAL +NTSC
----------+---------+---------+----------
8-2       | 22.4865 | 23.383  |  0.8965
----------+---------+---------+----------
Sum       | 193.541 | 193.751 |  0.21
((EDIT: Table reformatted to show properly)) In this case, the NTSC version is faster by 0.21 seconds (about a dozen frames)! NTSC improves further if we decide that the mid-level non-playable segments must be included in 1-1, because unlike other levels, going through that here is a decision that can be avoided. In that case the 1-1 times become:
Area      |   NTSC  |  PAL    |   diff
          |   time  |  time   | -PAL +NTSC
----------+---------+---------+----------
1-1       | 18.1655 | 18.433  |  0.2675
----------+---------+---------+----------
Sum       | 199.476 | 200.101 |  0.634
((EDIT: Table reformatted to show properly)) Gaining the NTSC run an additional 0.415 seconds (about 25 frames). All in all, PAL being necessarily faster in terms of game-play is doubtful.
As I initially mentioned in my post on Page 9 of 12 (responded to by Nach on Page 10 of 12), the first paragraph here ignores the fact that PAL also contains gameplay/nongameplay tradeoffs to avoid the firework animations as well. Once again, another error, this time extremely significant and relevant, which was dismissed by Nach as:
Nach wrote:
The time consideration only matters if it were to obsolete NTSC.
- which only further questions why all these comparisons are part of the judgement text if they don't matter (as I stated near the beginning here)? MrWint provided a corrected table for 8-2, here.
8-2       | 10979  12363    1384  23.029 |  9038  10189    1151  23.017 | -0.012
----------+------------------------------+------------------------------+-------
Sum       |                11628 193.481 |                 9674 193.453 | -0.028
Not only do proper numbers make things closer, it actually keeps things favoring PAL, unlike in the incorrect information where NTSC pulls ahead here. And once again, these numbers can easily be accurately obtained as posted by MrWint yet Nach did not ask in this thread how to do so. Nor was it asked how to in the SMB thread on the forums, either (at least not since April, which is much before this TAS was submitted, and likely not at any point in 2017). So once again, a lack of effort in parts that Nach believed were not relevant. Only when you get to the 1-1 splits could you possibly start to consider NTSC ahead, but a glance across the SMB thread indicates even that may not be the case. So the whole point about NTSC being faster in gameplay than PAL is extremely questionable, if not completely incorrect, and a slew of false numbers in the jugdement text support the skewed view of Nach. Proper numbers don't make the argument Nach does, though - PAL is faster than NTSC in both real time and quite likely as well in gameplay time (I say quite likely because analysis is still ongoing in the SMB thread) So in all of this text, we have evaluated the judgement text that, according to Nach, was not relevant, and yet with the very next sentence stated is indicated to be relevant. And the text above is, while partially accurate, inaccurate and wrong, especially in the most important parts (the gameplay time). Yet despite being not relevant it is part of the judgement text. Once again, it's either relevant and part of the text or not relevant and should not be part of the text. And if you're going to reference it in text that is actually your judgement text then it certainly is relevant, and should be error free, or have minor grammatical errors at worst. And as has been shown and proven, the text is not error free, and the errors that do exist are far more than minor grammatical errors- it can be argued that the significance of these errors alone should call for a rejudgement of the TAS, but since this is our final post, we will go much further than this.
Judgment Text wrote:
Armed with all the aforementioned information, how do we look at this? I decided to ask other judges for their opinions for the different possibilities, raised a few counterpoints with them, then assessed how they changed their opinion. I will not list their names because I should be the sole person receiving any fallout for the judgment on this run. What follows is how I characterize the opinions they conveyed to me.
Before I mentioned (counter)points:
Judge | Obsolete | New Variant | Reject
------+----------+-------------+----------
A     | Absurd   | Yes!        | No
B     | Absurd   | Yes         | Maybe
C     | Yes      | No Way!     | Maybe
D     | Absurd   | Yes!        | No
------------------------------------------

After:
Judge | Obsolete | New Variant | Reject
------+----------+-------------+----------
B     | Absurd   | No Way!     | Yes!
C     | Maybe    | No Way!     | Yes
D     | Absurd   | Maybe       | Yes
E     | Absurd   | No          | Yes!
------------------------------------------
((EDIT: Tables reformatted to show properly)) (One judge was unique in each group)
Let me requote that first statement. "Armed with all the aforementioned information, how do we look at this?" This statement being made about information that was not relevant to the judgement that was made. If that alone does not scream contradiction, I have no clue how to show you any clearer. What are the counterpoints presented? This is never stated. If we assume that it was the above information, not only do we now get to show that Nach is wrong, but that Nach has actively lied in regards to the judgement text made - you cannot claim something is not relevant if it is the counterpoints you yourself use in discussion with other judges to formulate a ruling on the judgement! If we assume that the above information was not the counterarguments presented, then we have the issue of secrecy. And given the errors in the information above, we have secrecy plus information that is already under a cloud of doubt, coming from someone who has attacked members of the site and is under scrutiny for his or her errors in judgement text, being crucial to the ultimate judgement rendered, for a submission that is very prominent for TASVideos.org. Either way you slice this, there are monstrous questions present here and nothing said by Nach will ever clear things fully in this regard - and this is entirely unacceptable.
Judgment Text wrote:
When I initially saw this run, knowing the differences right off the bat between variants and our aims, it seemed clear to me that obsoletion was lunacy. However my knee-jerk reaction was that I love this run, the engine is a bit different, let's just accept this as another variant. However, those are not good reasons to accept something, we have rules. Thinking about how this run actually differs from the NTSC when viewing, it's not by much. More than that, there's nothing that really necessitates a difference. Just because one run decided to randomly jump at some point does not make it different from a run which does not. It has to be different as a branch in a significant manner, not just how it was played back in a particular run or mere moments of it. The new glitch, while new, does not look so different going through the wall than going through the wall otherwise. Also, I'm not convinced every run of this PAL branch would require this glitch being abused. So looking at changes across the run, they seem minor, and 4/5 judges I spoke to are now in favor of rejecting. After assessing everything yesterday for one last time, I was conflicted on what to do. After sleeping on it, seeing no new convincing posts one way or the other, and considering the different factors listed above further, one side in my mind now slightly outweighs the other. In conclusion, while some PAL games are acceptable, and other branches for SMB PAL may be acceptable, this TAS does not seem to be acceptable with what we know right now and how we handle these sorts of things. Rejecting.
The first statement made here is also not language I would expect of an unbiased judge. Declaring a major, valid, consideration "lunacy" is utterly absurd. Especially when, as has been shown above (and I will delve further into this later), it is a valid version for obsoletion of NTSC. The rest of this set of paragraphs goes into the final thoughts that led to the rejection of the run. "After sleeping on it, seeing no new convincing posts one way or the other, and considering the different factors listed above further, one side in my mind now slightly outweighs the other." A 'slight' difference, backed with inaccurate information acquired hastily without true accuracy that was, quite possibly unintentionally, used to mislead other judges into the ruling given, is what rejects this run. And yet this site is supposed to support accuracy, encouraging the use of proper, accurate ROMs and emulators to obsolete older TASes done without proper, accurate ROMs and emulators ( see http://tasvideos.org/MovieRules.html#PlayGamesThatAreEmulatedWell and http://tasvideos.org/MovieRules.html#ObsoletingAPublishedMovie ). Finally, regarding the decision tree posted, I've already evaluated that in a post on Page 10, and it was replied to. This post is already long and I have only started to delve into things, so I will not repeat my analysis of the decision tree here. Now for your last response to me.
Nach wrote:
Habreno wrote:
Furthermore, the concept of "original version" and "non-original version" is not on TASVideos.org in any form until you mentioned it here.
You must be having a really hard time. "Original" appears 4 times on this TASVideos.org page: http://tasvideos.org/JudgeGuidelines.html which happens to be the Judging handbook. I'm sure next you'll be arguing that the judging guidelines don't actually refer to how to judge these games.
http://tasvideos.org/JudgeGuidelines.html#ManagingGameVersionsPortsOnMultiplePlatforms I had missed that "original version" is mentioned in the judging guidelines since it is not mentioned with regard to region (only platform), but "non-original" is still not mentioned (though one could argue anything not original is non original) and what is original is not clearly defined when it comes to regions, only with regards to platforms. One could possibly argue that SMB PAL is not original based on the release dates of the game (late 1985 for J/U, early/mid 1987 for PAL) but given the NES was not released for PAL until late 1986 or even 1987, it is uncertain if, had the NES been released earlier in those regions, the release date would have been the same. Furthermore, given that the game is for the NES, the game was released for the original console and SMB PAL is therefore an original release since it was released for the original console. In short, unless it can be proven completely that the PAL NES is different enough from other regions (which Warp expressed this concern, though I have yet to see any proof of it. Framerate changes and fixing the DPCM glitch is not enough to completely split the consoles.) then being released for the original console should be sufficient enough to be considered the original version. Especially without version numbers to show some versions otherwise are not (as with some modern games, where there are re-releases that fix glitches and such and these versions are differentiable by looking at the actual game package (be it a cartridge or disc)).
Nach wrote:
Habreno wrote:
SMB PAL is an acceptable version (and if it's not, that's on you, the judge, to show why, against all of the reasons presented in the thread)
You mean the reasons presented in the thread against it on the first pages, which quoted the Movie Rules regarding NTSC vs PAL? Many in the thread didn't consider it acceptable at all till MrWint's analysis. Also I presented my own analysis in my judging comments. Based on your comment here, it appears you're not even aware of what I wrote.
http://tasvideos.org/MovieRules.html#NtscVsPalUsaJapanVsEurope Based on the Movie Rules, which allow for the use of PAL if "there are significant technical and/or entertainment merits to using this version". And as others have stated in the thread, these merits exist. Firstly, being faster is a significant entertainment merit, especially for SMB PAL, a TAS that has seen one frame of improvement since 2009 (quoting others from the thread). Secondly, the technical merits from being adapted to PAL do not detract as they usually would due to Nintendo's efforts at adapting the game to PAL standards. There is clear merit to use of PAL in line with TASVideos.org rules, and while it may not be enough on a close decision or scrutiny, there is certainly enough that the factor of obsoletion or not should not be "lunacy" and should be examined further than a casual passing glance.
Nach wrote:
Habreno wrote:
given it is on the original console (NES) it is effectively an "original version".
This fails common sense. It's not the original version and you know it.
"Original console = original version" fails common sense?!?! At least debate me with some facts.
Nach wrote:
Habreno wrote:
The onus is on you to show that there are actual differences besides the framerate which makes PAL NES a different console entirely
Why should I attempt to prove a ridiculous claim that I never made that bears little relevance?
If you wish to show that SMB PAL is not an original version, this is part of it. If you don't care if it's an original version or not, you don't have to, but then you have to show why. Which involves showing why, even if you accept SMB PAL is original, it is still not a good version, and if you do not accept it, why it is not deserving of comparison to what you deem the original. The former is not possible to do because it is a good version - you've admitted this yourself - and the latter would require showing why the same game, when moved to a different region, becomes a different enough game that it cannot be compared to another region, despite being the same game. So I ask: What is SMB PAL, then, and why is it what you consider it?
Nach wrote:
Habreno wrote:
A direct comparison is very easy - you compare from start of input to end of input, with each set of inputs at its proper framerate, and then time them. And in this comparison, PAL is ahead, because it finishes its inputs first in realtime. The framerate changes are not hard to deal with, there is zero reason this should have even been brought up.
I bring them up because the rules do:
  • Keep in mind that time gained solely through basic ROM differences will be discounted for the purpose of comparison. This includes:
    • differences in title screen, cutscenes, and menus (unless menus are the game's main control interface).
Being that these are our rules, it is rather obvious how some of them apply to this case. (Although as I mentioned both in judgment and again in my decision tree, some of it is not clear cut.)
You bolded cutscenes, yet you fail to consider what the gameplay time does to the cutscenes. Say each of two regions has a ten second cutscene, not including the time it takes (during this cutscene) for the player to walk across the screen (which takes five seconds normally). Region A has no way to manipulate this. Region B could execute a glitch, which costs two seconds of gameplay time, but it speeds up the walking by three seconds. Which region is faster (let's assume, for simplicity's sake, this is the only difference between the two)? Answer before moving on- I'll have the answer in the paragraph after this one. A proper comparison would be to include the differences caused by the gameplay in the cutscenes. You claim that the cutscenes differ in time, however, ignore the fact that this is due to differences in each game's gameplay time (which, as addressed above, even your comparisons on this are questionable at utter best) and the fact that SMB features a frame rule which causes such non-gameplay cutscenes to only progress at specific frame points. In short, since the gameplay time affects the cutscene time inversely (longer gameplay can cause shorter cutscenes) it is unfair to discount cutscene length when comparing versions as they are affected directly by the gameplay itself, and therefore should be included when comparing the gameplay. Regardless of how you slice this, though, PAL still beats NTSC overall, and under whatever comparisons you wish to include. Using correct information, of course. Now, the answer: Region A, because of two seconds less gameplay time, even though it's slower in real time by one second. If you answered this, congradulations on holding out to an extremely authoritarian view of the rules. Let me further show you the rules exactly and be just as pedantic as you are about how the rules are explictly stated. You get your treat with the next quote. If you answered that Region B is faster by one second of real time and that the cutscene length must be included because of the glitch, then congradulations on getting this question right. You just showed that all of the analysis in your judgement text was not relevant because PAL beats NTSC in real time and the cutscenes inside the TAS are affected by the gameplay itself and therefore can't truly be discounted when doing a region comparison.
Nach wrote:
Habreno wrote:
Secondly, the only rules about comparing playable and non playable content is with regards to NTSC-U and NTSC-J. None of it is in regards to PAL.
Rules don't exist in a vacuum. Extrapolating from similar cases to decide how to handle cases where there are no existing laws is common practice. I'm sorry, you're having a difficult time with this. If these rules apply to cases where only the language changes, all the more so in cases where the changes are much larger.
If you answered the first answer, then here's your treat. The rules might not exist in a vacuum, but your pedantic insistance on treating them in an authoritarian manner here goes against you, because the rules explicitly state that comparisons between NTSC-U and NTSC-J are subject to the comparisons of text and such, and that because none of the rule includes PAL, explicitly stating NTSC-U and NTSC-J it does not apply to PAL. If you answered the latter, let me actually address your point. Title screen may be a very small difference if any exists at all. I haven't calculated, because it's possibly a hundreth of a second or so if it exists at all. Language change is zero. And cutscenes were addressed above. So all of the rules you want to apply are either changes of zero, very nearly zero, or inapplicable due to the interaction between gameplay and non-gameplay times- and even if you do include the gameplay only, it is still questionable at best if NTSC is ahead of PAL.
Nach wrote:
Habreno wrote:
Where in the TASVideos.org rules does it state that when comparing versions from different regions you need to factor in framerate changes?
How about you tell me where the rules state that this should NOT be factored in? Since it's up in the air, I find any direct comparison to be flawed.
I'm not the judge here. It's not my job to know the rules, it's yours (and given some of what's been said above, that knowledge you have is certainly not entirely correct). Show me where it says they need to be factored in.
Nach wrote:
Habreno wrote:
"Conclusion: I don't have the slightest idea." Then why are you even rendering a judgement if you don't know?
Why are you getting hung up on a point which didn't in the end have any bearing on the outcome? Your whole argument here would only be valid if I accepted it as a new branch, then you could argue that it was supposed to obsolete it.
This (and several previous quotes, I won't quote them all here) fail to address various facets where the decision tree fails its fact checks despite them being "meaningless comparisons", to quote Nach. Except they aren't because as part of the actual judgement text you have counterarguments made which likely included parts of the judgement text which were not stated to be relevant, which was this part of the decision tree that is "meaningless comparisons". You can't have it both ways and have it be relevant and not. Plus, once again, you fail to adress my points and attack me as a person. And you wonder why I've been calling you out on this so hard?
Nach wrote:
Habreno wrote:
In regards to obsoletion, I believe the decision against doing so was reached extremely hastily without considering the rules of TASVideos.org as they stand now. The decision posted covers a fair bit of what is described as "extraneous content not related to the decision made" and this "extraneous content" is furthermore inaccurate and also does not conform to site rules. The decision against a new branch (assuming we are not considering obsoletion) is likely the soundest part of the judgement given yet even this has its flaws due to various factors, including partially the hasty decisions made prior.
You're welcome to make your own opinions and characterize others and their actions as you see fit. We're going to have to disagree.
Except disagreeing is not based on opinion, but facts being pointed out to you that are in most cases ignoring. Must be good to be an admin and not have anyone above you to demote you so you don't have to worry about your actions. Now let's get to Feos's posts. I don't have a lot to quote from these since most of it has been stated, but what I do is rather relevant.
Feos wrote:
If we can't change the rules and the minds of the judges, we need to convince the audience that they weren't quite right. If we can't convince the audience, we are either wrong ourselves, or haven't came up with compelling arguments.
Part of convincing the audience involves having your facts straight and not being wrong. When your judgement text is (compared to most) riddled with errors and inaccuracies, convincing an audience that was clearly in favor of the judgement you did not choose becomes a much harder task, and you get people, like myself, which will point out the errors and inaccuracies and call for a rejudgement of the TAS. The sheer quantity of errors in the judgement text (relevancy does not matter since it is part of the whole text) certainly throws into doubt the correctness of the judgement - which leads towards the calls for rejudgement. That it has only come from one person or that it comes from many should not matter. If there is sufficient reason to revisit the judgement, it should be revisited.
Feos wrote:
Or we also can try to tweak everything: the rules, the judges' opinions, the audience's opinions, making one huge compromise. I know it works, we've done that before with little to no complaints on the result.
My analysis done here is irrespective of changing the rules (which is a different topic and I will not address here), but any move towards compromise certainly does not lend this judgement to lasting. So the judgement is not only under scrutiny from my end, but is also under potential scrutiny from a revisit due to rules changes (and you can certainly bet any rule change made is with this submission in mind and this submission, under potential rule changes, would be revisited). The house is crumbling, Nach. You can die inside it or not, it's up to you.
Feos wrote:
But the thing is, the verdict should have considered all these factors to begin with.
And it did not. And as a judge, by not considering the factors Feos included, you failed as a judge. You went against the audience with shaky reasons and questionable logic and parts of your judgement including wording such as "lunacy". And now you get to endure the wrath you brought upon yourself by being disrespectful to those questioning the judgement instead of actually debating them. You may be a judge, and you may be an administrator, but, frankly, you're an egotistic asshole, too. And if you ban me over that, that will only further prove that you have no ability to defend this judgement with logic and that this site as a whole is in need of serious change at the top. YOU attacked me first and I remained respectful up to this post, and even in here I have been respectful in the majority of what I said.
Feos wrote:
It's clear to everybody that this run has enough entertainment merits. See how the rule doesn't require both. And again, the technical aspect of that game that allows this one glitch there is the main part that makes it so entertaining to everyone. It is very minor. Yet it in reality turns out as an incredibly powerful and exceptional thing, I explained why. Not only because the game is fully known and suddenly the run is different. But mostly because it is still shorter in real time. That's the part that generates all the madness here, and it is as clear as the entertainment value of this run.
Quoted for emphasis. Judge rules don't require both, only one, and this run certainly has it and multiple people have said it. Not just myself and Feos, but many other people in this thread. A quote from Chanoyu's post that was replied to by Nach:
Nach wrote:
Chanoyu wrote:
Therefore I think that the judge guidelines, as the OoT example shows, provide opportunity to at least soften the "lunacy" of obsoleting a "perfectly valid original".
I think you're attempting to compare apples and limousines.
No, comparing regions and versions for OOT and comparing regions for SMB is not apples to limousines. It's a very relevant one. MrWint's post (which I have quoted the tables from above, this is regarding other aspects of the post) and Nach's reply:
MrWint wrote:
There are more things that are not recognized that would favor PAL. The suspicious time gain of NTSC in 8-3 is caused by the fact that doing the flag pole glitch costs (playable) time, and NTSC doesn't do one in 8-3, so these would be another couple frames gained by PAL in this calculation. My main point though is that the PAL version is faster than the NTSC version, not only on technicalities, even when only considering the actual gameplay. The individual level times show that PAL is consistently a tiny bit faster. And the only reason it is even that close overall is because of the water section in 8-4, PAL is significantly slower while walking or swimming (they used a factor of 7/6 instead of 6/5). The ruling misrepresents the facts by how they display the data.
Firstly, it's nice to see numbers from someone who is able to create proper data. Interesting to note the slight error in 8-4's water section which makes things as close as they are- would be interesting to know the difference had they used 6/5 instead of 7/6. But regardless (let's ignore the hypothetical question since it's truly irrelevant, the game uses 7/6 and not 6/5), perhaps since you mentioned unrecognized differences these should be clarified?
MrWint wrote:
This doesn't invalidate the reasoning in the ruling, according to the helpful decision tree the same path still applies. So why is this relevant at all then? The reason it is relevant, the reason it was probably included in the ruling to begin with, is that it makes the decision much less defensible. When you can show that PAL is only faster based on a technicality, it is easier to discount it as a port that doesn't reach the glory of the true original. It demonstably convinced other judges into changing their opinion. However, if that isn't actually true, you're not left with much to justify the decision.
I strongly believe this to be the case. If it is, Nach certainly won't admit it. God forbid.
MrWint wrote:
I can understand why people are upset about this decision. The way it looks like to me is that you have a submission on a different version of the game than the currently published one. It is faster than the currently published run no matter how you slice it, and also well-liked. It has been rejected because it is apparently too different to allow obsoletion, but simultaneously too similar to warrant its own category (source: decision tree). This is a middle ground I don't think should exist, at least not for a high-profile game like SMB.
It's a middle ground that should not exist at all, regardless of the game's notoriety or fame.
MrWint wrote:
And the decision relies heavily on the "original" vs. "non-original" distinction, which I don't understand at all. Whether or not something was on the market first has no relevance by itself. Actual possibly valid reasons are usually only results of this fact, like when the original was significantly more popular than later versions, or when later versions were poorly made compared to the original. It'd be great to get some elaboration on this point. The way it stands now it sounds like a handwavy way to justify a biased opinion about PAL games being intrinsically inferior due to being "not the original". The way Nach describes it as "Having a non-original game replace a perfectly valid original seemed lunacy to me, [...]" suggests that not much thought went into why that would be the case. Being the original doesn't make it better by itself.
I am glad I am not the only one that sees this.
Nach wrote:
None of the other judges had seen any numbers I came up with prior to me posting the judgement. The numbers didn't have anything to do with how they were convinced either. Nor were numbers even relevant to any point any judge thought of except for one of them. This was also already mentioned in this thread.
So now we know that the counterpoints which you posed to the judges that caused several opinions to differ is not even something you felt was relevant to disclose to us, seeing as it's not what you posted prior to the "Judgement" portion of the judgement and it's not part of the judgement itself (because there's absolutely nothing in there that could possibly make a counterpoint -
Judgment Text wrote:
Thinking about how this run actually differs from the NTSC when viewing, it's not by much. More than that, there's nothing that really necessitates a difference. Just because one run decided to randomly jump at some point does not make it different from a run which does not. It has to be different as a branch in a significant manner, not just how it was played back in a particular run or mere moments of it. The new glitch, while new, does not look so different going through the wall than going through the wall otherwise. Also, I'm not convinced every run of this PAL branch would require this glitch being abused. So looking at changes across the run, they seem minor, and 4/5 judges I spoke to are now in favor of rejecting.
- these two paragraphs are the only possible part that could possibly include a counterpoint and it's not in here at all) this mysterious counterpoint which is not in the judgement text despite being extremely relevant as it caused two judges to change their opinion and affected the others as well, coming from a person who has invalid data and wrong facts and is incorrect in the rules of TASVideos.org. You can understand my extreme skepticisim here.
Nach wrote:
Instead of attacking me claiming not much thought went into the decision (which I spent over a month weighing and obtaining positions from the other judges), or my opinion of PAL which I laid out in the judge notes which is contrary to your conclusion regarding my opinion, why not consider that you yourself may be a bit biased because of the game or the effort you put into it.
And yet you attack others all the time (no, I won't bother to quote every single one starting from your first response to me, you can look it up yourself) but cry foul when you get attacked. And yet you're an admin for the site. Shouldn't it be on you to be professional instead of attacking people and then crying foul when you get attacked? I have a strong feeling your butt would not be handed to you on a silver platter as often if you had more respect for people. But that's just my opinion. To respond with some facts, if you spent a month weighing and obtaining positions from the other judges, perhaps part of that time would have been better spent doing fact-checking and getting all of your data straight. Relevant or not, having wrong information in your judgement comments does not shine a positive light on the judgement itself. Furthermore, MrWint's bias should not be a factor here - MrWint is not juding this TAS. You, on the other hand, Nach, are. Your bias is extremely relevant for that reason.
Nach wrote:
adelikat provided an argument for why it does, see some of my earlier posts. Also, whether it's better or not isn't really grounds whether it should obsolete another. I think Super Mario All-Stars is better, should it obsolete everything?
Many people have given arguments as to why it does not. And given that the superior version can be judged to obsolete (see http://tasvideos.org/JudgeGuidelines.html#ManagingGameVersionsPortsOnMultiplePlatforms ) it is relevant and grounds for considering obsoletion. From Feos's last post:
Feos wrote:
And if we abstract from the time-saver tricks and just take gameplay alone that's faster, that's where we need to clarify our rules. The reason to pick a PAL ROM version over NTSC should be superiority only IMO. Even if the two versions are similar in their quality, switching to PAL whenever it's faster feels like it reduces the challenge that has been traditional there and gives cheap time advantages. A similar thing happened to startup RAM state: we don't want to give this cheap method to everyone until we have a solid reason to. The solid reason being certain console possibility.
This points towards rules that need to change (not the topic for this thread, but making that note). Rules that, once they change, will likely result in the rejudgement of this TAS eventually.
Feos wrote:
Similarly, we should only switch to PAL if it's justified, makes sense, and in my earlier post I suggested these to check superiority: better media, gameplay, difficulty, challenge, glitches, routes. Some of these, or just one, but hugely superior. The decision to switch over should be a consensus between the viewers and the judges (and the author I guess?). Superiority here hasn't been proven, the PAL version is just shorter by its nature, and not the biggest part of the crowd wants obsoletion, and the judges disagree with it, so there is no consensus here.
And yet being shorter by its nature (in elements that matter) is completely accurate and valid and should be enough reason. It's not a different game, and it's not shorter in ways TASVideos.org rules ignore when doing comparisons. From MrWint's final post:
MrWint wrote:
I can only go on what you wrote though, and my comments reflect the impression it had on me (and possibly other people). When you write a long paragraph about debunking that PAL is faster then NTSC, and then present a "before" and "after" judge voting, the obvious conclusion is that you used the material you presented in previous paragraphs in your discussions.
While I'm still not convinced this wasn't part of what you used with your counterarguments (and nothing you can say will ever change that, you have lost my trust as far as that goes), I'll at least entertain that your counterarguments you presented to the judges was not based on the data given (which, by the way, we still have no idea of).
MrWint wrote:
You're also not innocent in this, though. I didn't gather this data yesterday, I have a spreadsheet with more detailed frame comparisons (also for the non-playable parts) which I created when investigating the feasibility of this run. Just because I didn't write about it doesn't mean nobody paid any attention. I just didn't think it was relevant to the conversation until you brought it up in the verdict, with numbers that didn't match mine. I still don't think it's a fair way to time the versions, but I think we're on the same page there.
I doubt you two are, but regardless. MrWint is completely correct in that if you wanted to put such data in your judgement text (relevant or not) you had ample time to figure out how to make this data right. And you screwed it up. Badly. You can see where this draws doubt into your arguments, Nach.
MrWint wrote:
Regarding the original vs. non-original discussion, I admit I didn't read all posts in the thread in detail. I did however read all your responses (except the small-print you clearly don't want me to read), and you pointed to the Judging Guidelines, and gave an example of how acceleration changes difficulty in some sections. The difficulty argument is frankly debatable, you are assuming intention where none may exist. Just because you experienced the difficulty in NTSC a certain way, doesn't mean they specifically designed each jump to have a certain difficulty. Of course a certain progression was clearly intended, but not everything that's different is automatically "non-original". If I wanted to play devil's advocate here, I could claim that the PAL version is the true original, and they just didn't get it right the first time with the NTSC version, so they tweaked it intentionally for PAL. My point is not that this is unknowable (you could ask someone who worked on it), my point is it should be irrelevant, they are no more than differences, not making one version intriniscally better. You don't want to go out of your way tracking down what the actual developer intentions were for each section of each game to judge a submission for how true it is to the original intentions, and you can't assume just because it came out first that this must be the intention (if that were the case, no 1.1 versions would exist), so you can only see them as what they are, differences without any preference. If the differences are large enough, a new category might be warranted, and if they are not, obsoletion might be warranted. That is why I think the originality argument based on "indisputable authenticity" (source: Judge Guidelines) is flawed and not actually that indisputable.
Just pointing this out to show I'm not the only one who is debating the use of "original". Warp's last post, posted shortly before I was about to submit this:
Warp wrote:
Swordless Link wrote:
This is a speedrun. The version that saves the most time should be published.
It's a speedrun of a different game. As in, the games are not identical. The difference in speed is not because one run is more optimized than the other, but because one is using a different game, with functional differences, than the other. Personally I find it a bit silly to argue "this TAS is faster than that other TAS, therefore it should obsolete the latter", when the TASes aren't even running the same game binary. Because they are not bit-by-bit the same game, if both deserve publication, they should be published side-by-side.
There are many cases where games that were not bit-by-bit identical obsoleted each other. No, I won't find these, they're rather numerous. Region and/or version change can be responsible for changes in the exact sequence of bits that makes up the game, such that the published run is being obsoleted by a different run. As an example given above, OOT has changed from a 1.2 version to a 1.0 version to a different region of 1.0. All of these include changes to the game binary and yet obsoleted each other. So clearly the argument that ROMs that are not bit-by-bit identical should not obsolete each other is not supported by precedent and is also not supported by site rules (no such requirement exists). Furthermore, one can show that changes to the game binary are recommended in cases where the original run was not done with a proper ROM, as in the case of ROM errors (such as overdumped ROMs) (see http://tasvideos.org/MovieRules.html#ObsoletingAPublishedMovie ). http://tasvideos.org/MovieRules.html#UseTheCorrectVersion would not need to exist if we relied on the game binary being identical, as well. In short, the game does not need to be bit-by-bit identical for obsoletion on TASVideos.org. Precedent and site rules both prove this. No, I will not be providing a TL;DR (EDIT: Tried to, many times. Ended up being several paragraphs and too wordy). I put over eight hours into crafting this post just in this sitting, and over eighteen hours total into research and thinking about this one post. I don't expect you to put eighteen hours in to reading it. If you take anything away from this, take the fact that someone's put a lot of time into a set of points that are likely to be ignored by a site admin that is adamant about being wrong and insulting those who question him and think hard about how this site runs if one of its admins acts like this. And if Nach bans me, then it only lends more credence to my points. EDIT: Formatting (9/9/17)
Banned User
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
No offense, but dude, I don't think many people are going to read that wall of text. Try to summarize, please?
Experienced Forum User
Joined: 5/23/2014
Posts: 162
It's not possible to summarize it, there are far too many things mentioned to even consider doing so. I may, however, fix the tables Nach used in his judgement text in the morning, since they do not appear to have come out properly. But it's 03:42 right now and after working on that since 19:00 or so yesterday I am tired.
Emulator Coder, Experienced Forum User
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
MrWint wrote:
Sorry Nach, my intention was not to attack you personally, I may not have spent as much time as I should have formulating my points, so it ended up a rougher than I intended.
Apology accepted.
MrWint wrote:
When you write a long paragraph about debunking that PAL is faster then NTSC, and then present a "before" and "after" judge voting, the obvious conclusion is that you used the material you presented in previous paragraphs in your discussions.
I don't understand how people come to this "obvious" conclusion. The "before" is before I said anything to a judge except ask their opinion. If nearly every judge did not consider obsoletion before, and did not consider it after I made some undefined argument, I don't see why people would think that PAL vs. NTSC speed was even part of the discussion at all. Yes I used some of the material presented in previous paragraphs, but only the ones that applied to whatever the judge's opinion was "before". PAL vs. NTSC could only possibly apply to one of the judges, and even then I didn't end up using it as the case was. If I made any speed related argument with them trying to change their opinion, for the majority of the judges, it must have been about why PAL is way faster and it should obsolete NTSC! I don't know how to interpret the presented data on what happened any other way.
MrWint wrote:
You're also not innocent in this, though. I didn't gather this data yesterday, I have a spreadsheet with more detailed frame comparisons (also for the non-playable parts) which I created when investigating the feasibility of this run. Just because I didn't write about it doesn't mean nobody paid any attention. I just didn't think it was relevant to the conversation until you brought it up in the verdict, with numbers that didn't match mine. I still don't think it's a fair way to time the versions, but I think we're on the same page there.
Nobody paid attention in the discussion, because nobody posted any hard numbers, just kept on going on and on about faster real time, which is never how we compare changes across versions. There was also this mistaken impression in the thread that the speed difference primarily had to do with the glitch in 1-2, which is clearly not true when you realize the time disparity is greatest in 8-2 which is far greater than that in 1-2. The times I posted as a whole also serve to unmask any parity between the two, which was my aim. On another point, the numbers I posted and that you posted are fairly close, and I also mentioned my timings could have rounding errors or be off by a frame (or more if you define start/end of non-playable differently than I did), so I don't have an issue with the numbers not precisely matching. But even if your numbers are more accurate than mine, I find them suspect too. Running your numbers shows me that frames / time is getting different FPS for different NTSC segments. So either my calculator is broken, or you're doing something with these numbers I'm not aware of.
MrWint wrote:
The difficulty argument is frankly debatable, you are assuming intention where none may exist. Just because you experienced the difficulty in NTSC a certain way, doesn't mean they specifically designed each jump to have a certain difficulty.
I agree it's debatable. The reason why I specifically wrote that it's adelikat's opinion is that I don't entirely share it, I can see either side. Although from the conversation we had, he is strongly attempting to argue based on a ratio between different engine numbers being relatively proportional to each other, with those same numbers being present in level design by area. That proportion according to him does not align correctly in the PAL version (I did not even attempt to verify any of this data myself).
MrWint wrote:
If I wanted to play devil's advocate here, I could claim that the PAL version is the true original, and they just didn't get it right the first time with the NTSC version, so they tweaked it intentionally for PAL.
It's hard to claim PAL is original when it came out about 3 years after the NTSC version. Nintendo wasn't even sure they were going to do Europe at all at first, and wanted to see if things caught on in the US prior. Additionally, if you're correct that the PAL changes are intentional (bug fixes aside), why don't those changes appear in SMB2j?
MrWint wrote:
My point is not that this is unknowable (you could ask someone who worked on it), my point is it should be irrelevant, they are no more than differences, not making one version intriniscally better. You don't want to go out of your way tracking down what the actual developer intentions were for each section of each game to judge a submission for how true it is to the original intentions, and you can't assume just because it came out first that this must be the intention (if that were the case, no 1.1 versions would exist), so you can only see them as what they are, differences without any preference. If the differences are large enough, a new category might be warranted, and if they are not, obsoletion might be warranted. That is why I think the originality argument based on "indisputable authenticity" (source: Judge Guidelines) is flawed and not actually that indisputable.
For the games were the PAL port is exceptionally shoddy (which unfortunately many are), I think for those cases NTSC having indisputable authenticity is correct.
MrWint wrote:
I didn't disagree with the verdict, I disagreed with the way it was presented, which is what I think the main reason for the small outrage has been. I'm sure you thought about this thoroughly, but the judge's notes didn't reflect all of that properly.
It's definitely possible I could have presented some of it better than I did. It's also why I later added the decision tree because people had a hard time following what I wrote. But still I have a hard time believing people are coming to certain conclusions when those conclusions only adhere to a portion I wrote but are contradicted by another. For those cases I understand why people are asking for clarification, but I don't get why they're jumping to conclusions.
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.
Post subject: Disecting more reading comprehension failure!
Emulator Coder, Experienced Forum User
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Habreno wrote:
Before we even get into this, let's get things straight. You, Nach, an administrator for the site, are seriously attacking people for disagreeing with you, and yet expect to still be considered a fair judge? There is absolutely no need for that (especially considering I, despite my disagreements, was very civil and objective in debating the judgement and not anything related to you as a person. Thanks for showing the same respect back jerk) and honestly, if you hadn't been so damn determined to insult me, I wouldn't be coming after this judgement as much as I am. This post probably would not have been created. But you insist on being right, and you leave me no choice.
Let's see, you are constantly trying to deny the quality in my judgment and characterizing it in a way intended to make me look bad, even when your characterization is not upheld by anything I wrote and you further try to misrepresent what I wrote. Then you're claiming I'm attacking you for responding to these attacks on me, often purposely reusing similar words that you used, okay. As for insulting you, no, that's not my aim. I'd say I was mocking what you wrote, which I will continue to do so with this response here, because you either seem to put so little effort into your writing in understanding what I wrote, or are intentionally trying to misrepresent it.
Habreno wrote:
Despite region differences, the NES is the NES, and while regions may be differentiated in the rules of TASVideos.org, nowhere does it mention that consoles are as well.
Yet the rules mention taking into account difference across games when comparing them, which clearly applies when the NES is not the same NES.
Habreno wrote:
"When we look at PAL <em>ports</em>, we must understand that these games are adaptions or variants of the original." You once again insist on calling it a port despite still being for the NES.
I see you still insist on trying to claim it's not a port despite it not being for the same kind of NES, which cannot even properly run games made for another kind of NES.
Habreno wrote:
Aside from once again calling PAL a port (I'll stop pointing this out from now on, but this error is basically all throughout the judgement)
I like how you keeping making this error that it's not a port.
Habreno wrote:
and the differences in the engine, made with that goal in mind, are extremely difficult to notice
I don't know, the music speed and Mario's walking speed during the cut scenes are incredibly obvious to me to notice. The former is something I also saw mentioned several times in the thread, so people are noticing some differences quite simply. Once you realize these differences, even a casual observation starts to reveal several others. Also try playing 2-3 and 7-3, to me at least, they felt very different.
Habreno wrote:
However the kicker here is actually in the first sentence. "If a PAL port offered the exact same engine/quality as the original, it could make sense to have it obsolete the original [...]" (emphasis added). Nintendo, as a game company, has always aimed to offer the exact same quality across all regions of the game it releases. I would argue they succeed, and your sentiments (based on the second paragraph here) seem to mirror mine. In regards to "engine/quality" the / is indicative of "or", thus the sentence reads "engine or quality" and while the engine may not be the same, the quality is (by your own sentiments), thus qualifying this run to obsolete NTSC based on the judgement text given
The slash indicates for some PAL port runs that engine is of primary importance while for others quality is. Engine is of primary importance when dealing with speedruns, because how else do you compare speedruns when their engine works extremely differently? While for playarounds quality is more of a concern. Since this run is trying to obsolete based on speed, it totally fails on the exact same engine qualification. Further as to quality as a secondary concern this case, it is possible to argue the quality is not there either. See what I wrote above regarding adelikat's comments.
Habreno wrote:
Nach wrote:
The first thing I want to shoot down is the idea that SMB PAL is faster than SMB NTSC. There are quite a few parts of the game that are non-playable. These include score countdown, castle animations, pipe transitions, 1-2, 2-2, 4-2, and 7-2 initial cut screens, level banners, vine climbing, and Bowser drowning to our princess is in another castle. When comparing across versions we need to take all this into account and figure out actual game-play time. NES SMB processes the non-playable segments of the games in multiples of 21 frames and 18 frames for NTSC and PAL respectively. Nintendo altered the number from 21 to 18 because 21/60 and 18/50 is 0.35 and 0.36, which should provide a close gaming experience on the port. In actuality, using more precise numbers, NTSC has frames which are ~0.0166 seconds long, and PAL ~0.0199 seconds. This means the non-playable parts are processed in multiples of ~0.3494 seconds and ~0.3599 seconds. Since these non-playable segments run on boundaries that are multiples of these, it means that the NTSC version allows slightly more time to get in activity before the game will round upwards. Conversely, if you just went a bit over a multiple, the PAL version will proceed to the next multiple sooner.
We'll get to the actual comparisons next, but the initial statement is factually wrong. If you look at the submission times, the PAL TAS is, in fact, faster than the NTSC TAS. ... Next, we have the comments about what non-playable parts are included, and included in this list is "Bowser drowning to our princess is in another castle" which is after the end of input and thus isn't included in TASVideos.org timing at all.
My paragraph which makes no mention of this submission and mentions a whole bunch of parts of the game not seen in this submission is clearly not talking about this submission! (Obvious, right? ) I like how you are then claiming it's wrong because it doesn't match the submission. Oh lord of pedanticness, how do you reconcile your own claim that "our princess is in another castle" occurs "after the end of input"? If I was a normal human being commenting on this, I'd say I'd knew what you actually meant, but since you are so pedantic, how can I possibly let this go? (Note the "if I was" probably doesn't mean "I" here.)
Habreno wrote:
I would expect an administrator of the site, including one that has stated he is "quite familiar with" to realize when the timing of the TAS would end for a game. And yet this error was made. While errors like this one may not be deemed relevant by the judge to the decision ultimately rendered, they certainly show that the judgement is made by someone whose expertise is questionable at times (including this one, especially as this is not the only error in this judgement text), and for said judge to be an administrator of the site certainly does not paint things in a better light for Nach.
Oh lord pedantic supreme, I think you conclusively proved with this last one a total lack of reading comprehension or an extreme campaign to paint me in a bad light.
Habreno wrote:
As also discussed here, the alterations made for the game's transition to PAL framerates included modifying the frame rule. NTSC's frame rule is 21 frames and the game runs at 60 frames per second (roughly), or 0.35 second chunks (technically slightly less, but for some slight simplicity here we'll round to two decimal places), and the most you would wait is 20 frames (0.33 seconds) (assuming if you meet the frame rule exactly you move on "instantly"). PAL's frame rule is 18 frames and the game runs at 50 frames per second, or 0.36 second chunks, and the most you would wait is 17 frames (0.34 seconds). Therefore, to correct the final few sentences, PAL actually gets slightly more time per frame rule to sneak into the frame rule (0.36 seconds vs 0.35 seconds), while NTSC is actually faster to the next frame rule if you go barely over (0.33 seconds vs 0.34 seconds), and not the other way around, as is stated in the judgement text. Even if my presumption that you move on instantly if you meet the frame rule exactly is wrong, the second corrected statemet still holds true (0.35 seconds vs 0.36 seconds). Yet another error by Nach.
Since the game itself is on a cycle of frames, and we're talking about frame rules, the internal time is what matters, making what I said correct. Yet you looked at it multiplied by the real time difference which is not how the game works, and you thus reversed what actually occurs. Yet another error by the supremely pedantic lord Habreno! On NTSC, anything completed on frames 1-21 (or 0-20 depending on how you look at it) doesn't require rounding, and PAL limits this to 1-18, therefore NTSC version allows slightly more time to get in activity before the game will round upwards. Conversely, if you just went a bit over a multiple, the PAL version will proceed to the next multiple sooner. However, these margins are more significant for PAL than NTSC because the non-playable parts are processed in multiples of ~0.3494 seconds and ~0.3599 seconds for NTSC and PAL respectively. Although on the other hand, the sweet spot for PAL is pretty much anything 1-18 past its multiples, while the sweet spot for NTSC is 19-21 past its multiples.
Habreno wrote:
Let us compare this table vs the one by MrWint (albeit comparing MrWint's PAL TAS vs the NTSC TAS, but given that his TAS matches the submission by HappyLee in real time identically, the fact that the two are different and that his is potentially "faster" should end up being irrelevant).
I love how two different TASs which spend time in playable areas differently to a noticeable degree are not relevant when it comes to comparisons made across playable areas.
Habreno wrote:
As I initially mentioned in my post on Page 9 of 12 (responded to by Nach on Page 10 of 12), the first paragraph here ignores the fact that PAL also contains gameplay/nongameplay tradeoffs to avoid the firework animations as well. Once again, another error, this time extremely significant and relevant, which was dismissed by Nach as "The time consideration only matters if it were to obsolete NTSC." - which only further questions why all these comparisons are part of the judgement text if they don't matter (as I stated near the beginning here)?
Yes, keep asking questions which was already answered multiple times.
Habreno wrote:
Not only do proper numbers make things closer, it actually keeps things favoring PAL, unlike in the incorrect information where NTSC pulls ahead here.
I like how a comparison done with a different run is used to shoot down my comments on a completely different comparison. Further you keep doing it for a point which A) Is not relevant for the judgment, B) misses the point of the comparison made altogether (which is to highlight differences between the engines and the difficulty in comparing the two).
Habreno wrote:
And once again, these numbers can easily be accurately obtained as posted by MrWint yet Nach did not ask in this thread how to do so. Nor was it asked how to in the SMB thread on the forums, either (at least not since April, which is much before this TAS was submitted, and likely not at any point in 2017). So once again, a lack of effort in parts that Nach believed were not relevant.
Yes, because the only way to compare numbers for timing the length of a segment is to ask MrWint or in the SMB thread. Conversely if I did ask someone else to provide such numbers for me, you'd then be arguing the lack of effort I myself put into it, and I'm delegating because I'm lazy.
Habreno wrote:
Let me requote that first statement. "Armed with all the aforementioned information, how do we look at this?" This statement being made about information that was not relevant to the judgement that was made. If that alone does not scream contradiction, I have no clue how to show you any clearer.
Across all the information, indeed, not every last bit of it was relevant in the end, but it was all reviewed. In fact in terms of all the information that was provided, a comparison table was just a fraction of it. For some reason you like blowing this out of proportion. You also like to completely skip over the fact that in that section I was asking questions of how does one compare the two, what is and is not valid (not that I have any answers for you on that), and I didn't even touch upon many of the game changes. The questioning how to compare is the key point, not what the actual numbers are. The fact is, there is no fair way to make a comparison between the two.
Habreno wrote:
What are the counterpoints presented? This is never stated. If we assume that it was the above information
Gee, counterpoints must be something which somehow opposed the original point made right? That's the only safe assumption you can make given the context when nothing else is stated.
Habreno wrote:
not only do we now get to show that Nach is wrong, but that Nach has actively lied in regards to the judgement text made - you cannot claim something is not relevant if it is the counterpoints you yourself use in discussion with other judges to formulate a ruling on the judgement!
Yet nothing you claimed that I lied about actually relates to being a counterpoint for any of the initial points offered (except for one judge), so it cannot rationally be assumed to be part of the conversation, or in-order to be a counterpoint, you must assume the exact opposite of what you're trying to sell. Yet you like to keep on lying about this. So either we must again call into question your reading comprehension abilities or your self proclaimed designation as being the one true source of information regarding how to judge this run.
Habreno wrote:
If we assume that the above information was not the counterarguments presented, then we have the issue of secrecy.
Right, issues of secrecy, because we cannot possibly fathom from all the information provided what might be a counterpoint to what was labeled as the original positions of each judge. The most common position "before" was accept as another variant, and the most common position "after" was against this, and anything else against prior was still the same after. Hmm, I wonder what the counterpoint must have been? Maybe this paragraph which presents counters to the "another variant" argument might be that counterpoint? Thinking about how this run actually differs from the NTSC when viewing, it's not by much. More than that, there's nothing that really necessitates a difference. Just because one run decided to randomly jump at some point does not make it different from a run which does not. It has to be different as a branch in a significant manner, not just how it was played back in a particular run or mere moments of it. The new glitch, while new, does not look so different going through the wall than going through the wall otherwise. Also, I'm not convinced every run of this PAL branch would require this glitch being abused. Could that possibly be it? That it then follows with So looking at changes across the run, they seem minor, and 4/5 judges I spoke to are now in favor of rejecting. which matches the table of judges somehow indicate that this paragraph was related to those 4/5 judges? We're just going to have to think about that one...
Habreno wrote:
Nach wrote:
When I initially saw this run, knowing the differences right off the bat between variants and our aims, it seemed clear to me that obsoletion was lunacy. However my knee-jerk reaction was that I love this run, the engine is a bit different, let's just accept this as another variant.
The first statement made here is also not language I would expect of an unbiased judge. Declaring a major, valid, consideration "lunacy" is utterly absurd.
Right, because judges cannot have an initial personal opinion on anything. Being that most of the judges shared that same initial personal opinion must mean that all the TASVideos judges are biased. Making you even trying to argue anything here "utterly absurd". The fact that the judgment actually differed from my original personal opinion and that I stated that I'm not personally pleased with the result which I created indicates how biased I am, right? Showing in great detail my thoughts on practically every matter discussed in the thread, initial positions, conferring with other judges, decision tree, that only goes to enlighten how biased and secretive I am about this.
Habreno wrote:
A proper comparison would be to include the differences caused by the gameplay in the cutscenes. You claim that the cutscenes differ in time, however, ignore the fact that this is due to differences in each game's gameplay time (which, as addressed above, even your comparisons on this are questionable at utter best) and the fact that SMB features a frame rule which causes such non-gameplay cutscenes to only progress at specific frame points. In short, since the gameplay time affects the cutscene time inversely (longer gameplay can cause shorter cutscenes) it is unfair to discount cutscene length when comparing versions as they are affected directly by the gameplay itself, and therefore should be included when comparing the gameplay.
Except those aren't the rules. Further as I've stated many times, there are so many changes in gameplay itself, any comparison is unfair, unlike what is typically done when only some cut scenes or text change.
Habreno wrote:
Habreno wrote:
Secondly, the only rules about comparing playable and non playable content is with regards to NTSC-U and NTSC-J. None of it is in regards to PAL.
Nach wrote:
Rules don't exist in a vacuum. Extrapolating from similar cases to decide how to handle cases where there are no existing laws is common practice. I'm sorry, you're having a difficult time with this. If these rules apply to cases where only the language changes, all the more so in cases where the changes are much larger.
If you answered the first answer, then here's your treat. The rules might not exist in a vacuum, but your pedantic insistance on treating them in an authoritarian manner here goes against you, because the rules explicitly state that comparisons between NTSC-U and NTSC-J are subject to the comparisons of text and such, and that because none of the rule includes PAL, explicitly stating NTSC-U and NTSC-J it does not apply to PAL. If you answered the latter, let me actually address your point. Title screen may be a very small difference if any exists at all. I haven't calculated, because it's possibly a hundreth of a second or so if it exists at all. Language change is zero. And cutscenes were addressed above. So all of the rules you want to apply are either changes of zero, very nearly zero, or inapplicable due to the interaction between gameplay and non-gameplay times- and even if you do include the gameplay only, it is stillquestionable at best if NTSC is ahead of PAL.
If the rules only compare NTSC-U and NTSC-J regarding taking into account the sole minor differences when doing comparison in order to make it fair, argument a fortiori, we definitely take into account major game change differences in order to make the comparison fair. You pointing out any comparison being questionable is my entire point, which I have repeated multiple times. The comparison is far from fair.
Habreno wrote:
I'm not the judge here. It's not my job to know the rules, it's yours (and given some of what's been said above, that knowledge you have is certainly not entirely correct). Show me where it says they need to be factored in.
Since all comparisons are meant to be fair, a lack of rules regarding comparison in cases where there is difficulty making it highlights they should not be made. I don't know why you keep missing this crucial point.
Habreno wrote:
Nach wrote:
I think you're attempting to compare apples and limousines.
No, comparing regions and versions for OOT and comparing regions for SMB is not apples to limousines. It's a very relevant one.
Right, comparing a case where differences are minor and primarily affect non-gameplay is directly and fairly comparable to a case where the differences are major and seriously affect gameplay.
Habreno wrote:
Firstly, it's nice to see numbers from someone who is able to create proper data.
Oh lord pedantic, you keep calling into question my numbers, but when someone else posts numbers with obvious errors in FPS, you fail to notice!
Habreno wrote:
And yet you attack others all the time (no, I won't bother to quote every single one starting from your first response to me, you can look it up yourself) but cry foul when you get attacked.
I'm crying foul? I don't recall it. Rather I'm responding appropriately to how people are attacking me with unwarranted characterizations and twisting what I wrote. For a lot of what you're writing, I think you need to stop projecting yourself on me.
Habreno wrote:
While I'm still not convinced this wasn't part of what you used with your counterarguments (and nothing you can say will ever change that, you have lost my trust as far as that goes)
You have lost any trust that I have in your abilities to apply common sense.
Habreno wrote:
In short, the game does not need to be bit-by-bit identical for obsoletion on TASVideos.org. Precedent and site rules both prove this.
That's true, but we do strive for rather comparable gameplay except in the rare cases where we opt for a cross-platform obsoletion. I would have responded to more of your other points but they fell into one of the following categories: A) Something which has been discussed at length already and I won't go into over and over again. B) Stuff which is not relevant to what's going on here (at least not that I could find, forgive me). C) Stuff which I could not follow the logic of. I'll take responsibility for not understanding some of your arguments. However I am sorry, I cannot reply to what makes no sense to me on even how to parse the concern raised. I'm sure you'll proceed to attack me on this too, but there's nothing I can do about it.
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.
Experienced Forum User
Joined: 10/23/2009
Posts: 544
Location: Where?
Guys, how about we simply enjoy how good this submission was and discuss/argue about the PAL vs. NTSC ruling in a different thread (look here!) ? =D Especially if you're not HappyLee! The judging has been done, there isn't not much you can do. Especially when HappyLee accepts the judging of his own submission. It's really up to him to contest the judging if he doesn't like it. From what I understand, it got rejected principally for one reason:
In conclusion, while some PAL games are acceptable, and other branches for SMB PAL may be acceptable, this TAS does not seem to be acceptable with what we know right now and how we handle these sorts of things.
Which is what you should try to change if you want to give this submission a second chance. =)
Experienced Forum User
Joined: 5/23/2014
Posts: 162
/shrug That's about as much effort as I expected you would put into things. Good to know this site is being run by someone like you.
Emulator Coder, Experienced Forum User
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Thank you, I appreciate your vote of confidence.
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.
Active player, Experienced Forum User (349)
Joined: 9/25/2011
Posts: 647
Speedy TAS of 2015
Niamek wrote:
Guys, how about we simply enjoy how good this submission was and discuss/argue about the PAL vs. NTSC ruling in a different thread (look here!) ? =D Especially if you're not HappyLee! The judging has been done, there isn't not much you can do. Especially when HappyLee accepts the judging of his own submission. It's really up to him to contest the judging if he doesn't like it. From what I understand, it got rejected principally for one reason:
In conclusion, while some PAL games are acceptable, and other branches for SMB PAL may be acceptable, this TAS does not seem to be acceptable with what we know right now and how we handle these sorts of things.
Which is what you should try to change if you want to give this submission a second chance. =)
I second Niamek's sentiment here. Unless HappyLee contests the judgement, further discussion here is unproductive. Let's not spend any more energy going back and forth over this run, and instead use that time and passion in the general thread to make things better for *all* of TASVideos, including this run!
Experienced Forum User, Experienced player (943)
Joined: 7/24/2013
Posts: 175
TAS of 2017Glitchy TAS of 2017Gameboy TAS of 2017Gameboy TASer of 2016Gameboy TAS of 2016Gameboy TASer of 2014Lucky TAS of 2014Gameboy TAS of 2014Lucky TAS of 2013
Nach wrote:
I don't understand how people come to this "obvious" conclusion.
Well, you did start off the Judgment section with the words "Armed with all the aforementioned information, [...]", implying that the comparison was used as well. In retrospect, I can see that you didn't mean it that way, but it wasn't clear when initially reading it.
Nach wrote:
Nobody paid attention in the discussion, because nobody posted any hard numbers, just kept on going on and on about faster real time, which is never how we compare changes across versions.
I don't think it's fair of you to expect this to just naturally come up in the discussion. I had no idea it was relevant, and nobody even questioned the timing in that direction. If this is a relevant part of how the run will be judged, I think it's also partly on you as the judge to bring this up before the final verdict hits people with this unexpectedly. I completely understand why you wouldn't want to just blindly trust other people's numbers though. Speaking of trusting my numbers, the table I posted is a straight export of a spreadsheet with only formatting adjustments. The times are rounded to the nearest millisecond. The frequencies used are 60.0988138974405 for NTSC and 50.0069789081886 for PAL. Can you point to one of the inconsistencies you saw? I'm happy to take a look and file a bug against Google Sheets. I can also provide higher-precision times if that helps clear things up.
Nach wrote:
Although from the conversation we had, he is strongly attempting to argue based on a ratio between different engine numbers being relatively proportional to each other, with those same numbers being present in level design by area. That proportion according to him does not align correctly in the PAL version (I did not even attempt to verify any of this data myself).
That sounds interesting, but I don't quite get what specifically adelikat means with the same numbers being present in the level design. I'd be interested to hear him elaborate on this.
Nach wrote:
It's hard to claim PAL is original when it came out about 3 years after the NTSC version. Nintendo wasn't even sure they were going to do Europe at all at first, and wanted to see if things caught on in the US prior. Additionally, if you're correct that the PAL changes are intentional (bug fixes aside), why don't those changes appear in SMB2j?
I know it's a stretch, and I'm not claiming that this is exactly what actually happened. It could have happened for any single part of the game though, or for other games, my point is that the current guideline of always preferring the original is presumptious. Regarding SMB2j, that's a trick question, it's because SMB2j came out in 1986, the PAL version only in 1987. Maybe they realized their mistakes only after SMB2j's release ;) Overall, while this submission didn't go as I expected in more than one way, I'm happy with the result. Thanks Nach for putting up with me, and again sorry for overstepping in my initial reaction (although from reading from your last correspondence in this thread you also seem to enjoy this kind of thing a little).
Alyosha
He/Him
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Expert player (2824)
Joined: 11/30/2014
Posts: 2474
Location: US
NES TASer of 2015
8-2       | 10979  12475    1496  24.892

8-2       | 10979  12363    1384  23.029
It seems myself and MrWint measured time slightly differently, but there is no disagreement that the time saved in 8-2 is 112 frames. The 2.379 seconds does seem to be in error, more likely 1.863. I really think at least this much should be corrected in the notes so as not to mis-inform people who might read it later. Even if it's not relevent to the judgement, it's still a statement by a judge attached to a player's submission, so it should be as accurate as possible.
Emulator Coder, Experienced Forum User
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
MrWint wrote:
Nach wrote:
Nobody paid attention in the discussion, because nobody posted any hard numbers, just kept on going on and on about faster real time, which is never how we compare changes across versions.
I don't think it's fair of you to expect this to just naturally come up in the discussion. I had no idea it was relevant, and nobody even questioned the timing in that direction. If this is a relevant part of how the run will be judged, I think it's also partly on you as the judge to bring this up before the final verdict hits people with this unexpectedly.
You're correct about this. Normally, I would also raise various lines of thought I'm considering prior to judging. However with all the madness going on in the thread prior to my judgment, I really didn't want to convolute things further before I had to judge it. At least at this point now people will focus on how this was judged as opposed to all the directions people were looking at before this.
MrWint wrote:
Speaking of trusting my numbers, the table I posted is a straight export of a spreadsheet with only formatting adjustments. The times are rounded to the nearest millisecond. The frequencies used are 60.0988138974405 for NTSC and 50.0069789081886 for PAL. Can you point to one of the inconsistencies you saw?
Sure, for first part of 1-1 NTSC, you have FPS as 60.10125755348685285, for the next part it's 60.09745533297238766, meanwhile 8-2 is 60.09963040334243934. So either I'm not doing my math right, my calculator is broken, or there's some fishy rounding or other issues with the numbers you posted. Your NTSC numbers are within a second of what I got, so it looks sort of right to me, but I had a difficult time reconciling some of the fractional difference here (not that it matters all that much at this point).
MrWint wrote:
I know it's a stretch, and I'm not claiming that this is exactly what actually happened. It could have happened for any single part of the game though, or for other games, my point is that the current guideline of always preferring the original is presumptious.
Well, the various rules we have allow for some leeway in different cases, I don't see a clear demand for always having the original, especially when the original version isn't clear. But for cases where there is a clear original, and it's a well designed original, it makes sense to me to prefer it.
MrWint wrote:
Regarding SMB2j, that's a trick question, it's because SMB2j came out in 1986, the PAL version only in 1987. Maybe they realized their mistakes only after SMB2j's release ;)
Well possibly. Although I believe most of the bug fixes you found in the PAL version are actually found in SMB2j first. I have a hard time believing the music tempo though was a mistake.
MrWint wrote:
Overall, while this submission didn't go as I expected in more than one way, I'm happy with the result. Thanks Nach for putting up with me, and again sorry for overstepping in my initial reaction
It's quite alright sir! Keep up the excellent work you're doing.
MrWint wrote:
(although from reading from your last correspondence in this thread you also seem to enjoy this kind of thing a little).
I actually prefer it when things go smoothly. However when they don't, I'm up for it. I spent a decade on one of the most combative forums around, and learned quite a few techniques in the process. Sometimes these sorts of discussions bring back fond memories. If you want some laughs check out Wiki: Nach/Arguing (and some people here who I won't name even tried using some of those techniques in this thread).
Alyosha wrote:
It seems myself and MrWint measured time slightly differently
I think we all did, and rounding errors abound.
Alyosha wrote:
but there is no disagreement that the time saved in 8-2 is 112 frames.
It's possible you're correct, although checking through some of my SMB notes, I found this:
<klmz> doing the new flagpole glitch in 8-2 wastes at least 120 frames but makes it up later
Which would be much closer to 2 seconds. Also one of the movies I measured had it a bit over 2 seconds, which is where my number came from (possibly with rounding errors). I'll go back and look through my video archive and recompute when I get a chance.
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.
Experienced Forum User, Site Admin, Skilled player (1023)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 10644
Location: RU
NES TAS of 2011
I started reading Habreno's megapost to give it due consideration and reply where needed, but after a few paragraphs I officially refuse. It is completely unreadable, with all sorts of tag quotes, manual quotes, huge quotes, tiny quotes, parentheses, double parentheses (seriously?), and when it all gets twisted together and overlaps in a single freaking paragraph, I protest against this post despite of all the things that it might have gotten right or wrong (I'll never know).
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. If TASing is meta-play, TASVideos Movie Rules are meta-meta-play!
Experienced Forum User, Experienced player (943)
Joined: 7/24/2013
Posts: 175
TAS of 2017Glitchy TAS of 2017Gameboy TAS of 2017Gameboy TASer of 2016Gameboy TAS of 2016Gameboy TASer of 2014Lucky TAS of 2014Gameboy TAS of 2014Lucky TAS of 2013
Nach wrote:
MrWint wrote:
Speaking of trusting my numbers, the table I posted is a straight export of a spreadsheet with only formatting adjustments. The times are rounded to the nearest millisecond. The frequencies used are 60.0988138974405 for NTSC and 50.0069789081886 for PAL. Can you point to one of the inconsistencies you saw?
Sure, for first part of 1-1 NTSC, you have FPS as 60.10125755348685285, for the next part it's 60.09745533297238766, meanwhile 8-2 is 60.09963040334243934. So either I'm not doing my math right, my calculator is broken, or there's some fishy rounding or other issues with the numbers you posted.
I can reassure you your math is correct, I can confirm I get the same results. However, that's just a side affect of rounding the times to the nearest millisecond. If you try to calculate the FPS from the rounded times, you'll get slighly different results depending on whether the time was rounded up or down. For example, the first part of 1-1 is 6.12324896507937s, rounded down to 6.123s, while the secon part is 1.84695824761905s, rounded up to 1.847s. No fishy business going on. You can calculate the exact numbers yourself using the frames and factors I provided, to check that's it's only rounding errors.
Emulator Coder, Experienced Forum User
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Okay then! Looks like we each posted numbers with different kinds of rounding errors. Thanks for the info.
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.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Skilled player (1805)
Joined: 8/25/2013
Posts: 1182
DS TASer of 2015
K I actually read the post since reading is a very easy skill. I think he makes a lot of good points, and more importantly I think it provides enough evidence for the run to be rejudged. So, calling for that.
effort on the first draft means less effort on any draft thereafter - some loser
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Skilled player (1293)
Joined: 12/28/2013
Posts: 394
Location: Rio de Janeiro, Brasil
SNES TAS of 2020TAS of 2015SNES TAS of 2015
arandomgameTASer wrote:
K I actually read the post since reading is a very easy skill. I think he makes a lot of good points, and more importantly I think it provides enough evidence for the run to be rejudged. So, calling for that.
No, he doesn't make a lot of good points. I might have missed a paragraph or 2, but I read almost the whole thing. There might be a few pertinent disagreements on Nach's thoughts, but at the end of the day it's a mater of opinion and how you interpret the facts. 90% of what he wrote though is wrong, previously replied or cheap dramatic offenses to Nach. And he tried to make a martyr of himself at the end which was pretty dumb. Can we please respect the final decision and accept this submission was rejected, as HappyLee kindly did long ago? If you think PAL games should be judged differently go to the proper thread and talk about it. If you only care about this submission though, please show some maturity. As I said earlier, you can disagree with the decision, but you can't call it absurd. There are enough argument supporting it. Disagreeing which a judge decision is normal. I'm sure if you look into the last few hundred decisions you will probably disagree with a few. What makes this submission particularly problematic is not that the decision is ''more absurd'', but the submission is 'more relevant', so it attracts much more discussion. There is no reasonable reason to rejudge this, considering that Nach worked on it for a month and 4 other judges were ok with the rejection. Please, get over it.
My YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCVoUfT49xN9TU-gDMHv57sw Projects: SMW 96 exit. SDW any%, with Amaraticando. SMA2 SMW small only Kaizo Mario World 3
Experienced Forum User
Joined: 5/23/2014
Posts: 162
feos wrote:
I started reading Habreno's megapost to give it due consideration and reply where needed, but after a few paragraphs I officially refuse. It is completely unreadable, with all sorts of tag quotes, manual quotes, huge quotes, tiny quotes, parentheses, double parentheses (seriously?), and when it all gets twisted together and overlaps in a single freaking paragraph, I protest against this post despite of all the things that it might have gotten right or wrong (I'll never know).
The tables as copied from the judgement text did not come out correctly and I need to fix this, yes. What other parts of the post aside from that were unreadable?
Active player, Experienced Forum User (349)
Joined: 9/25/2011
Posts: 647
Speedy TAS of 2015
Habreno wrote:
feos wrote:
I started reading Habreno's megapost to give it due consideration and reply where needed, but after a few paragraphs I officially refuse. It is completely unreadable, with all sorts of tag quotes, manual quotes, huge quotes, tiny quotes, parentheses, double parentheses (seriously?), and when it all gets twisted together and overlaps in a single freaking paragraph, I protest against this post despite of all the things that it might have gotten right or wrong (I'll never know).
The tables as copied from the judgement text did not come out correctly and I need to fix this, yes. What other parts of the post aside from that were unreadable?
Hi Habreno, For me, what made it unreadable was sheer volume. I stop by TASVideos in the morning before work, or for briefly before I go to bed. Lack of time kept me from being able to read what you wrote. I don't discourage long posts, but a quick TLDR section at the bottom of the post really helps people like me who are short on time.
Experienced Forum User
Joined: 5/23/2014
Posts: 162
c-square wrote:
Habreno wrote:
feos wrote:
I started reading Habreno's megapost to give it due consideration and reply where needed, but after a few paragraphs I officially refuse. It is completely unreadable, with all sorts of tag quotes, manual quotes, huge quotes, tiny quotes, parentheses, double parentheses (seriously?), and when it all gets twisted together and overlaps in a single freaking paragraph, I protest against this post despite of all the things that it might have gotten right or wrong (I'll never know).
The tables as copied from the judgement text did not come out correctly and I need to fix this, yes. What other parts of the post aside from that were unreadable?
Hi Habreno, For me, what made it unreadable was sheer volume. I stop by TASVideos in the morning before work, or for briefly before I go to bed. Lack of time kept me from being able to read what you wrote. I don't discourage long posts, but a quick TLDR section at the bottom of the post really helps people like me who are short on time.
Unfortunately due to the sheer size of the post and everything it encompasses a TL;DR would not cover enough and would add several paragraphs on to the post. I did consider a TL;DR and was trying to write one for a good half hour after I'd finished but everything I tried ended up being several paragraphs. If you break it up over a few days, outside the tables (as I mentioned above and I'm looking at fixing them, just need to figure out how) the entire post should be able to be read. If even breaking it up it is unreadable for reasons other than length/volume, please let me know so I can format it better. EDIT: The more I look at the first half (regarding the judgement text as in the OP) the more I see cases where things just don't turn out despite quoting the OP to copy them directly. I'm not sure why this is, and I'll have to see if there's any way to format this part better, though any reformatting will need to be done to keep things as close to the judgement text as possible to avoid any misconstructions of intent.
1 2
11 12 13