(Link to video)
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
12 13
Site Admin, Skilled player (1234)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11251
Location: RU
Habreno wrote:
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?
Where did I even mention the tables?
feos wrote:
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
For citations we have a tag, not a hundred ways to put quotation marks to perform nested citations that no one is able to trace and understand the source using intuition and black magic.
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.
Alyosha
He/Him
Editor, Expert player (3514)
Joined: 11/30/2014
Posts: 2713
Location: US
I have completed a new, more accurate in game time analysis here: http://tasvideos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=458702#458702 The new runs include time savings in 8-1 and 8-2, and use the vine in 4-2 to save in game time. They also remove all pole clips to save in game time. overall PAL is faster by 0.9 seconds or 0.4 seconds depending on how you count the pipe transitions in 1-1.
Joined: 5/23/2014
Posts: 162
Reformatted. I hope that makes things clearer for you, Feos. I also fixed the tables, though I had to completely redo them to do so. I did not change any of the data and if there is a data point that is different from the judgment text please let me know because accuracy to the judgment text is very important. I hope that makes the post clearer, and if not, please point out further ways in which I can do so.
iDuL
He/Him
Joined: 12/5/2011
Posts: 4
Location: Bay Area, California
I think this should go into the Gruefood Delight at least. I personally find it interesting that PAL is faster than NTSC.
Samsara
She/They
Expert player, Senior Judge, Site Admin (2121)
Joined: 11/13/2006
Posts: 2792
Location: Northern California
Well, this feels like a good way to test our fledgling Playground system! Moving this submission was meant to test the functionality itself (which is only a minimal implementation as of right now), and given that the site is not on fire it definitely feels stable enough to start working with! The actual rules based on this implementation have yet to be determined, but that should come VERY soon as both of the Senior Judges have wanted this for literal years. Stay tuned for updates!
TASvideos Admin and acting Senior Judge 💙 | Cohost
warmCabin wrote:
You shouldn't need a degree in computer science to get into this hobby.
MarbleousDave
He/Him
Player (12)
Joined: 9/12/2009
Posts: 1554
The floor collision in the PAL version works differently as the 2A07 processor handles things slightly different to the 2A03 in the NTSC version.
Fortranm
He/Him
Editor, Experienced player (773)
Joined: 10/19/2013
Posts: 1108
A movie that goes to Playground:
Wiki: MovieRules#UseTheCorrectVersionOfAGame
Using a PAL version of the game is allowed in some situations:
  • There are version exclusive changes to a PAL release that warrant its usage
  • Games for handheld consoles (like GameBoy)
  • Games that run in PAL60 mode (like on GameCube)
  • The original hardware allows it (see the above section on hardware accuracy)
Is this submission moved to Playground because it uses PAL without being qualified as one of the acceptable cases?
MESHUGGAH
Other
Skilled player (1884)
Joined: 11/14/2009
Posts: 1349
Location: 𝔐𝔞𝔤𝑦𝔞𝔯
What does this TAS does to call it a playground? Isn't this is just a PAL TAS? Edit: personal opinion as NOT a staff member: PAL TASes of games with different mechanics should be handled the same way as a different game, not a different movie tier. For example NES Rygar should have both while some other might not for example NES Dragon's Lair and flat out same games with fewer FPS rejected as it only has advantages of being slower.
PhD in TASing 🎓 speedrun enthusiast ❤🚷🔥 white hat hacker ▓ black box tester ░ censorships and rules...
GMP
He/Him
Active player, Editor, Reviewer (358)
Joined: 5/22/2020
Posts: 197
Location: Chennai, India
MESHUGGAH wrote:
What does this TAS does to call it a playground? Isn't this is just a PAL TAS? Edit: personal opinion as NOT a staff member: PAL TASes of games with different mechanics should be handled the same way as a different game, not a different movie tier. For example NES Rygar should have both while some other might not for example NES Dragon's Lair and flat out same games with fewer FPS rejected as it only has advantages of being slower.
Because it is Playground, not Playaround. Any TAS that doesn't make the cut for Publication stands a second chance in playground, from what I understand.
MESHUGGAH
Other
Skilled player (1884)
Joined: 11/14/2009
Posts: 1349
Location: 𝔐𝔞𝔤𝑦𝔞𝔯
Yeah I know it. What I don't know is what the hell is playground tier is if this TAS is the first one to be recognized as such. Like why does it valued as "demo" or "showcase" when it's a legitimate different gameplay experience above simply having a different FPS.
PhD in TASing 🎓 speedrun enthusiast ❤🚷🔥 white hat hacker ▓ black box tester ░ censorships and rules...
Judge, Skilled player (1275)
Joined: 9/12/2016
Posts: 1645
Location: Italy
MESHUGGAH wrote:
What does this TAS does to call it a playground? Isn't this is just a PAL TAS?
First off, Playground isn't a tier, but a class. And the reason why this movie is now in Playground is because it's not acceptable for the movie rules.
MESHUGGAH wrote:
Edit: personal opinion as NOT a staff member: PAL TASes of games with different mechanics should be handled the same way as a different game, not a different movie tier. For example NES Rygar should have both while some other might not for example NES Dragon's Lair and flat out same games with fewer FPS rejected as it only has advantages of being slower.
This submission was, in fact, "handled the same way as a different game". In order to be published as a separate branch, a movie needs to feature at least 50% unique gameplay contents (except for any% vs 100%). And when we have to choose between NTSC and PAL version, we prefer to pick the first one that was produced. This is because regional TV format requires for a game engine to undergo program modifications, which results more or less unfaithful to how the game was originally designed. So in the case of SMB, the NTSC is preferred over PAL for a matter of authenticity, even though the PAL version resulted in a (slightly) faster movie.
MESHUGGAH wrote:
Yeah I know it. What I don't know is what the hell is playground tier is if this TAS is the first one to be recognized as such.
Beside what GMP noted, Playground is designed to expand the publication space for featuring movies that are very unorthodox and niche.
MESHUGGAH wrote:
Like why does it valued as "demo" or "showcase" when it's a legitimate different gameplay experience above simply having a different FPS.
"legitimate different gameplay experience" does it surely make it sounds notable. But the facts speak differently here: Link to video
my personal page - my YouTube channel - my GitHub - my Discord: thunderaxe31 <Masterjun> if you look at the "NES" in a weird angle, it actually clearly says "GBA"
Site Admin, Skilled player (1234)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11251
Location: RU
This post explains why this movie is currently in Playground.
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.
MESHUGGAH
Other
Skilled player (1884)
Joined: 11/14/2009
Posts: 1349
Location: 𝔐𝔞𝔤𝑦𝔞𝔯
Thanks for the detailed informations ThunderAxe31! I have vastly different opinion as a simple viewer and TASer, in case anyone is interested, read it: There shouldn't be an arbitrary "X%" difference rule. How do you calculate the differences? How does X% difference affect you as a viewer? Why is there a line where two games which is "the same" according to the staff is allowed to be coexist under a different class? The comparison video clearly shows there are number of differences between the two games, some of them are clearly visible like the flagpole glitch and some of them are hardly, like the framerate. The route also have little differences at 1-2 over the pipe vs under the pipe, 8-2 bullet bill vs no bullet-bill. If I understand what the staff wants, they want to make the "common" ROM version to be featured while the other uncommon ROM version to be exist under a different name. Why? Why is this a desired thing? For Americans and Japan sure the NTSC ROM is the obvious choice. Just like for Europe the PAL ROM. I'm having a hard time understanding how does the original Nintendo developers creation of the same game released in different places which might includes different code/environment that results in different time of completion affects a TASer's choice of ROM to be called as whatever (currently Playground) while the other one is simple what it is? edit: forgot to write my decision. If I would be a judge, I would accept NTSC SMB (one if not the most famous TAS of this site) and PAL SMB as two different TAS and NTSC only obsoletes NTSC while PAL only obsoletes PAL. No need to make different tiers/class for this TAS.
PhD in TASing 🎓 speedrun enthusiast ❤🚷🔥 white hat hacker ▓ black box tester ░ censorships and rules...
Judge, Skilled player (1275)
Joined: 9/12/2016
Posts: 1645
Location: Italy
MESHUGGAH wrote:
How do you calculate the differences? How does X% difference affect you as a viewer? Why is there a line where two games which is "the same" according to the staff is allowed to be coexist under a different class?
We consider stuff like these:
  • Different game mechanics featured (playable character, weapons used, level sets, etc.)
  • Special self-imposed goals (don't use X weapon or Y button)
  • Different overall route or glitches showcased.
Note that the "50" number is just indicative. The edge cases are considered on a case-to-case basis, of course. As for the reason why, is because we want to promote movie diversity as much as possible. Otherwise casual viewers will lose interest. This is one of the main reasons why creating Playground was necessary: we could not simply start accepting whatever redundant movies in the already existing publication system.
MESHUGGAH wrote:
If I understand what the staff wants, they want to make the "common" ROM version to be featured while the other uncommon ROM version to be exist under a different name. Why? Why is this a desired thing?
Nope, that's not it. We don't look at how much a ROM is "common". It's more a matter of autenticy: regional conversions are considered less faithful to the original intent of the game developers. However, I have to acknowledge that this policy is very old, and it could be a good idea to discuss possible changes. After all, we already allow picking obscure game revisions just for the sake of abusing specific glitches that were introduced or patched out later.
MESHUGGAH wrote:
I'm having a hard time understanding how does the original Nintendo developers creation of the same game released in different places which might includes different code/environment that results in different time of completion affects a TASer's choice of ROM to be called as whatever (currently Playground) while the other one is simple what it is?
If two games use different framerate, and the game engine was adjusted in order to be kinda similar to the original version, then it becomes impossible to compare two runs and decide which one if faster. So we have to either accept both as separate publications, or keep just one of them published.
MESHUGGAH wrote:
edit: forgot to write my decision. If I would be a judge, I would accept NTSC SMB (one if not the most famous TAS of this site) and PAL SMB as two different TAS and NTSC only obsoletes NTSC while PAL only obsoletes PAL. No need to make different tiers/class for this TAS.
Sorry, that's not how our judging system works. When making a judgement that would set a new precedent, a judge should first consult with the other judges, and get to a verdict only after that the whole judges team is in complete agreement. Until that, we keep discussing every possible approach or rule update that could solve any doubt. That's why some judgements may take months. We don't do stuff like giving absolute decision rights to the judge who claimed a submission first. And we don't simply shut down a judge that disagrees to a decision, either.
my personal page - my YouTube channel - my GitHub - my Discord: thunderaxe31 <Masterjun> if you look at the "NES" in a weird angle, it actually clearly says "GBA"
Site Admin, Skilled player (1234)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11251
Location: RU
MESHUGGAH wrote:
PAL TASes of games with different mechanics should be handled the same way as a different game, not a different movie tier. For example NES Rygar should have both while some other might not for example NES Dragon's Lair and flat out same games with fewer FPS rejected as it only has advantages of being slower.
You probably wanted to say "if the PAL version features enough unique gameplay to feel like a different branch, its movie should co-exist as a different branch". Which is exactly what we've been doing for years. Treating them as separate games (but only under very specific conditions with no clear borderline) does not look required.
ThunderAxe31 wrote:
This submission was, in fact, "handled the same way as a different game". In order to be published as a separate branch, a movie needs to feature at least 50% unique gameplay contents (except for any% vs 100%).
I should correct this. The "50% unique content" requirement first appeared when we discussed whether to count certain in-game options as entirely different game modes, and for such, every mode would be treated as a separate game and be vaultable. With Moons branches, we were never required to calculate percentage of unique content, and this movie was rejected based on Moons requirements. Now that Vault is no more, we can still use this cutoff to determine what is a separate mode and can be a different branch in Standard. And in Moons, version differences are treated the same way as regular branch differences.
MESHUGGAH wrote:
There shouldn't be an arbitrary "X%" difference rule. How do you calculate the differences? How does X% difference affect you as a viewer? Why is there a line where two games which is "the same" according to the staff is allowed to be coexist under a different class?
If selecting a different character results in half of the levels being entirely different, that's a different mode. But this definition has been questioned by staff since then too, so don't treat it as "YES WE WILL ABSOLUTELY DEMAND THIS AT ANY COST". To me it feels like the least arbitrary borderline tho: it's majority if it's more than a half, and minority if it's less than a half.
MESHUGGAH wrote:
If I understand what the staff wants, they want to make the "common" ROM version to be featured while the other uncommon ROM version to be exist under a different name. Why? Why is this a desired thing?
Is that stated anywhere?
MESHUGGAH wrote:
If I would be a judge, I would accept NTSC SMB (one if not the most famous TAS of this site) and PAL SMB as two different TAS and NTSC only obsoletes NTSC while PAL only obsoletes PAL. No need to make different tiers/class for this TAS.
I thought this originally too, but after having compared the 2 movies more closely (a bit after it got rejected) I concluded there's not enough obvious difference to keep them both in then-Moons.
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.
1 2
12 13