(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 3 4 5 6
12 13
Active player (372)
Joined: 9/25/2011
Posts: 652
However this plays out... I want credit for creating the word "Obseletion"
Skilled player (1648)
Joined: 7/1/2013
Posts: 433
Such a polarizing submission!
Kung_Knut
He/Him
Joined: 8/10/2016
Posts: 85
Location: Sweden
I didn't see the following opinion anywhere, so I figured I might as well state it: Let the PAL run be the new official (unlabelled) any% run on TASvideos (since it is the fastest), and keep the current run in a new branch labelled "NTSC" (since it is of interest).
Banned User
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
Kung Knut wrote:
Let the PAL run be the new official (unlabelled) any% run on TASvideos (since it is the fastest), and keep the current run in a new branch labelled "NTSC" (since it is of interest).
This might actually be an interesting topic of conversation. It is my understanding that since forever, the NTSC version of a game is usually (and rather heavily) preferred of the PAL version, especially if there is little to no difference between the two and, of course, especially if the NTSC version allows for a faster completion time. Other than that last part, this raises the question of why. Why is the NTSC version of a game preferred by default? Is this a form of Americentrism? (I'm not asking that as a sociopolitical question, nor do I personally have anything against the United States. I'm just wondering if the preference of the NTSC version stems from the importance of the US in popular culture and society.) Although, to be fair, Japan also uses NTSC, which is a good point (if somebody were to raise it). As for that abovementioned last part, usually if the NTSC version allows for a faster completion, the PAL version is generally ignored (unless it's different enough to warrant its own category). But what happens when the PAL version is faster, as is the case here? Shouldn't it, if we were consistent, mean that it ought to be preferred over the NTSC version? (Again, personally I think both versions can and should co-exist. I'm just throwing some conversation in the air for your consideration.)
Joined: 6/30/2010
Posts: 1093
Location: Zurich, Switzerland
Warp wrote:
As for that abovementioned last part, usually if the NTSC version allows for a faster completion, the PAL version is generally ignored (unless it's different enough to warrant its own category). But what happens when the PAL version is faster, as is the case here? Shouldn't it, if we were consistent, mean that it ought to be preferred over the NTSC version?
It should be noted that the classic NTSC/PAL difference mostly applies to games up until the 5th gen (and partly the 6th). As soon as PAL60 is an option, it's much harder to make an argument why we have to use NTSC no matter what. This rule will get challenged the more we move on to newer systems. But even with the current rules, I highly doubt that anyone is going to reject, for example, a Twilight Princess TAS using the nearly identical PAL version to save a few seconds with the German language.
Current project: Gex 3 any% Paused: Gex 64 any% There are no N64 emulators. Just SM64 emulators with hacky support for all the other games.
Dwedit
He/Him
Joined: 3/24/2006
Posts: 692
Location: Chicago
NES games tended to be developed in Japan or USA, but some were developed in Europe. Many NES games got a really crappy port job, in which they did literally nothing, letting the game run slower, the music play slower, and one half-step lower. Obviously we don't want to see PAL TASes for those games, and this is probably the reason for the rule against picking PAL versions. A minority of NES games (such as mid to late Capcom games) got a decent port that fixed the music pitch and speed, but did not fix the gameplay speed. Then it occasionally happens the other way around too. Kiwi Kraze from Software Creations in UK got a NTSC port that increased the music pitch, but at least preserved the tempo. The NTSC version also runs faster, so that version would get picked for TASing rather than the PAL version, but I personally think the PAL version of that game is what the developers intended to create. There are just so few NES games that got a change for the game physics for the PAL version to properly adapt it to 50FPS vs 60FPS. I believe if the game got a physics adjustment, it will have its own set of unique quirks, and should be considered for a separate branch for TASing.
BigBoct
He/Him
Editor
Joined: 8/9/2007
Posts: 1692
Location: Tiffin/Republic, OH
andypanther wrote:
But even with the current rules, I highly doubt that anyone is going to reject, for example, a Twilight Princess TAS using the nearly identical PAL version to save a few seconds with the German language.
The rules actually state that these sorts of differences are NOT considered improvements. http://tasvideos.org/MovieRules.html#JVsU
Previous Name: boct1584
Noxxa
They/Them
Expert player, Moderator (4131)
Joined: 8/14/2009
Posts: 4083
Location: The Netherlands
boct1584 wrote:
The rules actually state that these sorts of differences are NOT considered improvements. http://tasvideos.org/MovieRules.html#JVsU
"not considered improvements" doesn't mean "not publishable". It means it does not count for obsoleting an English-language run, if that is the only difference between a submission and a published run. Regarding this sub-discussion about newer systems, the relevant rule is here:
European versions of handheld games are allowed, but are not recommended. Use an (U) version if available. The same rule applies to European versions of more modern console games that support PAL 60.
http://www.youtube.com/Noxxa <dwangoAC> This is a TAS (...). Not suitable for all audiences. May cause undesirable side-effects. May contain emulator abuse. Emulator may be abusive. This product contains glitches known to the state of California to cause egg defects. <Masterjun> I'm just a guy arranging bits in a sequence which could potentially amuse other people looking at these bits <adelikat> In Oregon Trail, I sacrificed my own family to save time. In Star trek, I killed helpless comrades in escape pods to save time. Here, I kill my allies to save time. I think I need help.
BigBoct
He/Him
Editor
Joined: 8/9/2007
Posts: 1692
Location: Tiffin/Republic, OH
Mothrayas wrote:
boct1584 wrote:
The rules actually state that these sorts of differences are NOT considered improvements. http://tasvideos.org/MovieRules.html#JVsU
"not considered improvements" doesn't mean "not publishable". It means it does not count for obsoleting an English-language run, if that is the only difference between a submission and a published run.
Got it. Next question on these lines: Since the site as a whole generally prefers (U), would a slower (U)/NTSC run for reasons such as this be eligible (pending viewer response of course) to obsolete a (E)/PAL run? EDIT: Oh right, I haven't given my opinion on the topic at large. I'm in favor of dual publication, since as mentioned the site generally prefers (U), and even though I'm a dilettante when it comes to TASing and speedrunning, I could see at least a few of the differences between (U) and (E) in feos's comparison encode.
Previous Name: boct1584
Fog
Experienced player (625)
Joined: 4/5/2014
Posts: 459
I personally feel that this run should be rejected according to the current rules of the website. PAL ports of early generation console games have been consistently bad, and the rules clearly state that NTSC U/J runs are preferred over PAL: "Console versions of PAL games run at a lower framerate than NTSC games, running at ~50Hz compared to NTSC's ~60Hz, and the games themselves are often not modified or poorly modified to accommodate to the change in timing. Due to this, PAL versions of ROMs are generally not allowed, unless there are significant technical and/or entertainment merits to using this version. See Rygar and Blaster Master for examples of good usage of the PAL ROM." Taking this at face value, there are barely any differences between the two versions of the game. Also, the glitch in question which is used is exclusive to the PAL version of the game. It's most likely that the port of this game from NTSC to PAL has introduced this glitch, as it does not exist in the NTSC version of the game.
Site Admin, Skilled player (1234)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11251
Location: RU
Fog wrote:
I personally feel that this run should be rejected according to the current rules of the website. PAL ports of early generation console games have been consistently bad, and the rules clearly state that NTSC U/J runs are preferred over PAL: ... Taking this at face value, there are barely any differences between the two versions of the game. Also, the glitch in question which is used is exclusive to the PAL version of the game. It's most likely that the port of this game from NTSC to PAL has introduced this glitch, as it does not exist in the NTSC version of the game.
Post #456822
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.
Player (26)
Joined: 8/29/2011
Posts: 1206
Location: Amsterdam
Fog wrote:
Taking this at face value, there are barely any differences between the two versions of the game. Also, the glitch in question which is used is exclusive to the PAL version of the game. It's most likely that the port of this game from NTSC to PAL has introduced this glitch, as it does not exist in the NTSC version of the game.
It's a good point that this glitch only exists because this is a poorly-made port of the game, basically an inferior version to the original. And, as has been pointed out, the two versions are basically indistinguishable unless you're extremely familiar with the game. I was previously in favor of obsolescence, but this is a strong argument for rejection right there. Clearly the two runs are way too similar to be distinct branches.
KennyMan666
He/Him
Joined: 8/24/2005
Posts: 374
Location: Göteboj
I was asked to post in the thread: (22:17:47) (KennyMan666) It's a separate category (22:17:59) (KennyMan666) Is what I think about it (22:18:52) (KennyMan666) There's not really any reason whatsoever to not have TASes published of both the NTSC and PAL versions, given that they have different glitches
Det man inte har i begåvning får man ta ut i energi. "I think I need to get to Snoop Dogg's level of high to be able to research this post." -Samsara Read my fanfic, One Piece: Pure Corruption
Site Admin, Skilled player (1234)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11251
Location: RU
Radiant wrote:
It's a good point that this glitch only exists because this is a poorly-made port of the game, basically an inferior version to the original.
Care to explain why different glitches in Rygar and Blaster Master aren't there because of "poorly-made ports of the games", but are instead so not poorly-made that they are preferred over the NTSC versions?
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.
Senior Moderator
Joined: 8/4/2005
Posts: 5769
Location: Away
If anything, I hope the judging process on this submission helps clarify the rules on PAL vs. NTSC and not complicate them further by creating yet another exception (because Nach loves SMB or w/e other reason). If exceptions come easy, or requested often, it typically indicates there might be something wrong with the rule; maybe it should be changed into a guideline or formulated differently. Also consider that the author has said he's fine with either outcome, and that linking the submission from the publication text of the NTSC run (which will remain the more referred-to run of the two—even if you obsolete it by the PAL run) is always an option, so technically this submission could stay visible without having to create another branch. You have a unique opportunity to avoid offending both the submitter and all the potential TASers who would like to run a PAL version of their game of choice but wouldn't be granted an exception because the rule would filter them out (this is basically why exceptions are a shitty thing to have in general). In my personal opinion, one small extra glitch doesn't justify a new branch, let alone a set of branches. There are plenty of other games where PAL would result in far more significant changes to game logic/physics. If you decide insignificant changes like this justify a new branch, then please apply this decision to runs where using PAL ports cut the time down by more than 1%. That's all I have to say on the matter.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Joined: 6/30/2010
Posts: 1093
Location: Zurich, Switzerland
It's not uncommon for PAL games to, for example, have faster movement due to the developers trying to compensate for the lower framerate. If those differences are interesting in a TAS, why should it matter what causes them? After all, PAL versions are official releases, not some random romhacks. I don't think we should just blindly follow the rule against PAL, no matter what. Besides, it really is debatable if it even makes sense to say that NTSC is preferred in the first place, when compared to identical other releases. But that's for a whole other topic...
Current project: Gex 3 any% Paused: Gex 64 any% There are no N64 emulators. Just SM64 emulators with hacky support for all the other games.
Editor, Experienced player (548)
Joined: 10/22/2016
Posts: 581
Location: Argentina
If this helps, maybe an admin can do another post about this Movie and a votation; Reject () - Obsolete NTSC () - New branch () Only for say and help the judge I guess, I'm agree of new branch is the most logic/fair option for me if the rules can be "flexible"
You can see more TASes on my youtube channel
Joined: 5/23/2014
Posts: 162
andypanther wrote:
But even with the current rules, I highly doubt that anyone is going to reject, for example, a Twilight Princess TAS using the nearly identical PAL version to save a few seconds with the German language.
Interesting you bring this up since the TP TAS is, in fact, being done in German. Though this was likely intentional. To bring up a more interesting point, by TASVideos standards, USA 1.0 is actually the fastest version of Skyward Sword, though JP is faster RTA, since the text speed is that much different. That said, my vote now goes to Yes, and Obsolete NTSC. It's not a port, it's SMB. That it has different glitches due to being adapted to PAL standards rather than NTSC standards is what makes it faster. Not text speed. Not "bad porting" - ESPECIALLY since it's not a port at all. Different, and better, glitches. And regarding the rule about using NTSC over other versions, it should be changed to: "Use the fastest version of the game available as an official release. In the event that, excluding any potential text speed (from language change) differences, multiple versions are identical, NTSC is preferred but not required. Note that time gained or lost due to text speed (from language change) alone is not considered when comparing versions unless the majority of the run is text based and should not be factored in when choosing the 'fastest version' of a game."
Site Admin, Skilled player (1234)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11251
Location: RU
Habreno wrote:
"Use the fastest version of the game available as an official release. In the event that, excluding any potential text speed (from language change) differences, multiple versions are identical, NTSC is preferred but not required. Note that time gained or lost due to text speed (from language change) alone is not considered when comparing versions unless the majority of the run is text based and should not be factored in when choosing the 'fastest version' of a game."
I don't disagree with that at all. The rule is just as old as the runs it calls good for PAL. With the Moons policies, it looks outdated.
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.
Banned User
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
moozooh wrote:
If anything, I hope the judging process on this submission helps clarify the rules on PAL vs. NTSC and not complicate them further by creating yet another exception (because Nach loves SMB or w/e other reason). If exceptions come easy, or requested often, it typically indicates there might be something wrong with the rule
The rule says (emphasis mine): "Due to this, PAL versions of ROMs are generally not allowed" I don't think any rule should be totalitarian. Any rule, no matter which, ought to allow for exceptions if there are good reasons for it. When rules are applied in a completely rigid totalitarian manner, it only causes problems. Rules should be flexible and be ready to accommodate the immense amount of variation in highly subjective situations. Secondly, the current rule, even as currently written, already does allow for exceptions. That's what the word "generally" above means. But if this causes clarifications and expansions to the current NTSC vs PAL rules, it's probably only a good thing. And btw, personally I heavily oppose the idea of this submission obsoleting the NTSC version. The NTSC version ought to exist as an official publication because of its importance.
Active player (397)
Joined: 3/30/2012
Posts: 401
It's fine if this submission gets accepted, but I am against obsoleting the NTSC TAS. The current NTSC TAS is the gold standard of TASing, and should not be replaced by time saves from switching versions.
Joined: 5/23/2014
Posts: 162
Warp wrote:
moozooh wrote:
If anything, I hope the judging process on this submission helps clarify the rules on PAL vs. NTSC and not complicate them further by creating yet another exception (because Nach loves SMB or w/e other reason). If exceptions come easy, or requested often, it typically indicates there might be something wrong with the rule
The rule says (emphasis mine): "Due to this, PAL versions of ROMs are generally not allowed" I don't think any rule should be totalitarian. Any rule, no matter which, ought to allow for exceptions if there are good reasons for it. When rules are applied in a completely rigid totalitarian manner, it only causes problems. Rules should be flexible and be ready to accommodate the immense amount of variation in highly subjective situations. Secondly, the current rule, even as currently written, already does allow for exceptions. That's what the word "generally" above means. But if this causes clarifications and expansions to the current NTSC vs PAL rules, it's probably only a good thing. And btw, personally I heavily oppose the idea of this submission obsoleting the NTSC version. The NTSC version ought to exist as an official publication because of its importance.
Regarding the emphasized part, sure. You're right in that it does not explictly ban PAL versions. But the difference between stating that PAL is generally not allowed and "use fastest version, NTSC preferred when tied" is rather large. In the former case, I have to argue that PAL is accpetable when it's identical to NTSC. In the latter, I can use whatever I prefer because I don't have to argue that PAL is okay, it's already implied. Ultimately, stating that X is generally not allowed means that X doesn't get used because you don't want a rejection coming down to "X shouldn't have been used here". Under the wording I proposed, X would not get rejected for simply being used since you don't have to argue that it should be. As a final kicker- we have several pages of posts debating both the use of PAL and if it would obsolete NTSC. Under the proposed wording, there would be zero argument if PAL should have been used, only a debate if we obsolete NTSC or not, which would likely fall the way of obsoletion with NTSC being added to Obsoletely Famous due to its pedigree.
Kung_Knut
He/Him
Joined: 8/10/2016
Posts: 85
Location: Sweden
feos wrote:
Habreno wrote:
"Use the fastest version of the game available as an official release. In the event that, excluding any potential text speed (from language change) differences, multiple versions are identical, NTSC is preferred but not required. Note that time gained or lost due to text speed (from language change) alone is not considered when comparing versions unless the majority of the run is text based and should not be factored in when choosing the 'fastest version' of a game."
I don't disagree with that at all. The rule is just as old as the runs it calls good for PAL. With the Moons policies, it looks outdated.
The bold-ified part above is very good because: Whenever there are multiple versions of an NTSC rom for a game (like v1.0U, v1.1U, v1.0J etc), if a version has a version-specific glitch that allows for a time save, then that version is used precisely because it saves time. So why should a PAL version be treated different? Its just another version, and should be treated as such. Let's stop talking about "bad ports" to PAL. If PAL versions are "bad ports", then what do we call different NTSC versions? "Good buggy first release" and "bad bug fix release"?
Banned User
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
Btw, an argument could perhaps even be made, if the NTSC NES and the PAL NES could even be considered the same console. There are fundamental differences between the two.
Active player (372)
Joined: 9/25/2011
Posts: 652
Okay, I'm going to throw in some food for thought: Whatever decision is made here will set a precedent that will be applied to other runs. So, what do we want to happen when a faster PAL version with different glitches is submitted for:
    SMB warpless SMB warpless walkathon SMB maximum coins
? Do they get all rejected because they're PAL? Do they all get new branches? Do they all obsolete the existing NTSC runs?
1 2 3 4 5 6
12 13