Top Gear 2 is an arcade simulation racing game made and developed by the company Kemco for the Super Nintendo and was released on September 15th, 1993.
Here comes the new and improved version of the previously published TAS for Top Gear 2 "all tracks" that nobody asked for, but do deserve. In this iteration of the TAS, I skip 1 extra track and improve on other glitched tracks which in the process saves 3 minutes and 52 seconds comparatively to the other TAS movie with a final time of 2:19:48.15
Game Objectives
Emulator Used: Bizhawk 2.3.2
Heavy Glitch Abuse
Plays on Hardest Difficulty
Starts from a New Game file "start"
Aims for Notable Improvement
Aims for Fastest Completion
Upgrades:
Stock V-6 = I keep this same engine for quite some time.
Kemco Rain Slicks = I purchase these tires at Sydney as it's the first track to introduce rain. The tire upgrade does matter here, as it keeps the car from sliding about.
Kemco Racing Slicks (best traction), 5-Speed Overdrive (Holds speed longer), & Total Boost 600-R (Builds speed quickly) are all purchased before racing at Britain London. These upgrades are used to perform a wall glitch here which will skip me to the 3rd lap rather quickly.
Screamin' V-12 = I finally buy the best engine in Egypt: Hugh Sitton. This engine allows me to get a lot of speed rather quickly, and also will allow me to maintain the speed gotten overall.
Manual is Faster than Automatic transmission in this game, you get a quicker starting boost from a nitro at the beginning of races.
About the category
All Tracks "(100%)" New Game is a category that requires the runner to complete the entire game as quickly as possible while being able to use wall glitches.
About the run
This run is a full completion run of the entire game. The TAS skips 18 tracks leaving a total of 46/64 races completed. This run does reach the credits sequence.
Countries:
Australasia - Auckland, Ayers Rock, Canterbury Plains, Sydney
Maru: It took me a while to make my decision with this one...
Note that I asked the author myself about the differences in purchases early on. It appears that the author purchased Nitro before Gearbox as a speed/entertainment tradeoff. Although I can't agree that it added to entertainment in the slightest, these types of tradeoffs do not technically go against our rules.
Besides, it's not the first time that we've accepted TASes that have used "slower routes" compared to a prior version. The best example I can think of is regarding the Super Metroid NMG TAS that used the underflow glitch. That TAS used a slower route compared to the prior version, but it was executed better and therefore was accepted as an improvement to that run. Some of those principles involved in handling that TAS can also be applied here.
While I still think the optimization is questionable, it's not noticeably sloppy. The author does not make obvious mistakes such as bumping into cars and what-not. Additionally, improving this game is non-trivial in itself. If anyone wants to go through the effort to improve it, go ahead and be my guest.
I'm accepting this as an improvement to the published run, although barely. Accepting to Vault tier.
So the old submission has been in the queue since August, and you decided to make this 5 days after the other one was published?
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.
It's been done since August 23rd 2019, but I haven't had the chance up until now to submit this notable improvement.
The previous movie of 2:23:40.99 that I submitted was done on August 3rd 2019. Shortly there after, on August 23rd 2019 (2 weeks 6 days) I made a notable improvement.
Joined: 10/12/2011
Posts: 6337
Location: The land down under.
However you were comfortably able to make two posts in October meaning that you had plenty of time to do the submission then.
That's going off of post history. Instead of asking for a file replacement for the movie you just gave a new submission after publication, which is honestly on a processing side a waste of time.
However, because of that it means you should have no errors that were pointed out to you then. Shouldn't it?
You lost 2 frames screwing about in the menus.
Also that means you should make a table for the frame time or the in game time for each level since we found out that it is actually reliable enough.
WebNations/Sabih wrote:
+fsvgm777 never censoring anything.
Disables Comments and Ratings for the YouTube account.Something better for yourself and also others.
It's been done since August 23rd 2019, but I haven't had the chance up until now to submit this notable improvement.
Why?
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.
Joined: 10/12/2011
Posts: 6337
Location: The land down under.
Just because you're faster on TAStime doesn't mean your faster overall.
(Bold is faster)
I've seen enough honestly just by comparing the first five races to the currently published movie you improve in later areas but you lose time in earlier areas.
This TAS isn't balanced, more can be improved.
Abstaining from voting.
As a reminder. You cannot make the argument about IGT not being valuable when it's shows off the lack of skill and is still completely usable for a quick comparison.
(Like you argued on the Published movie)
Edit: You should also explain the purchases you do throughout the run.
End of Race 1: Gearbox vs Nitro
End of Race 3: Wet Tires
What you've demonstrated here is that getting upgraded Nitro instead of an upgraded Gearbox is not worth it when it's compared.
Especially with the lack of explanation.
WebNations/Sabih wrote:
+fsvgm777 never censoring anything.
Disables Comments and Ratings for the YouTube account.Something better for yourself and also others.
Wow, not one, but two, but three calling birds shitting on this movie.
After watching this, I think this is an excellent publication. Yes vote from me.
Joined: 10/12/2011
Posts: 6337
Location: The land down under.
electricslide wrote:
Wow, not one, but two, but three calling birds shitting on this movie.
So when are you going to get back to me about the other post you made that was illogical?
Also. Who are the three birds? You have myself a Publisher. feos a Senior Judge + Publisher and Technickle who all commented about the TAS in the forums.
Unless you're talking about yourself with your latest post.
He's actually talking about me but this would then be a case of him failing to count. I guess Sesame Street can't teach you everything.
Also fun fact while we're here. The driving lines actually look worse than the previous movie for the first 5 races.
Double fun fact for you electricslide since you have selective reading.
The TAS was made and confirmed by the author to be done in 3 weeks since the previous movie's initial submission and we're still trying to understand why the author didn't provide the input and instead went "incognito", do you have an explanation for that or are you going to make another illogical comment about it?
What would happen if the author took another 3 weeks after submission and found another improvement wasting everyone's time cause he didn't talk up about it cause he was "busy" but there were posts he made during that "busy" period where he could've pointed it out?
WebNations/Sabih wrote:
+fsvgm777 never censoring anything.
Disables Comments and Ratings for the YouTube account.Something better for yourself and also others.
Wow, not one, but two, but three calling birds shitting on this movie.
Do you ever look at the criticisms posted? Or do you just think it's all "PEOPLE BEING MEAN I MUST OBJECT"?
There are some very clear issues with this movie, if you want to disagree with those criticisms that's one thing, but it seems like it doesnt even matter what the criticism is to you.
[14:15] <feos> WinDOES what DOSn't
12:33:44 PM <Mothrayas> "I got an oof with my game!"
Mothrayas Today at 12:22: <Colin> thank you for supporting noble causes such as my feet
MemoryTAS Today at 11:55 AM: you wouldn't know beauty if it slapped you in the face with a giant fish
[Today at 4:51 PM] Mothrayas: although if you like your own tweets that's the online equivalent of sniffing your own farts and probably tells a lot about you as a person
MemoryTAS Today at 7:01 PM: But I exert big staff energy honestly lol
Samsara Today at 1:20 PM: wouldn't ACE in a real life TAS just stand for Actually Cease Existing
To play devil's advocate to the comments above, I'll just say this.
While Technickle hasn't said why he waited so long to submit this improved TAS, I'm assuming the story goes like this: he initially created his first Top Gear TAS in mid-2018, which was rejected. Then, he submitted a few more TASes for the game in different categories, which were also rejected. Then, after 5 failed submissions, including one which was for a 2 hour TAS, he finally got his TAS accepted. However, due to concerns over his Top Gear 2 TAS that was published last week being suboptimal, and due to the length of the TAS, it took almost 3 months for it to actually get published from the time it was originally submitted.
Technickle probably noticed while checking for sub-optimality after receiving feedback for his TAS that he had about 4 minutes worth of time save that he could achieve if he re-did the TAS. However, since he had never had a TAS published on the site before, and there were already concerns about his current TAS not being up to standards, he decided to wait until his first TAS was published, and then a little while later he would create a new TAS to obsolete it once he was sure that he would get a movie published on the site. By the time months later when his TAS had actually been published, he got impatient waiting to make his next submission, and decided to just submit the improved TAS later on in the week.
Of course, this is all just speculation on my part. But since Technickle hasn't acknowledged what his motivation was for his actions, this seems like the most logical reason to me.
Having said that, in the comments you're making to Technickle, you're looking at the situation from the perspectives of an experienced publisher for the website and a senior judge for the website, who each have over 500 player points and lots of published movies on the site. You're not looking at this from the perspective of somebody with 0 accepted movies whose been trying for a year to get a single movie accepted.
Again, don't get me wrong, I'm not defending Technickle's actions, and I understand that you're annoyed with him for wasting your time both in terms of the time it took to judge his movie and the time it took to make and upload an encode for his TAS. I'm just saying that there's 2 sides to every story, and it's important to keep that in mind whenever judging someone's actions.
Also, to Technickle, I have something I would like to say about this new submission.
Since there is already a published movie for this category on the website, the standard that new submissions for this category are held to is that they should include all of the time save/speed tricks that the previous TAS included, plus whatever new optimizations were found. To this end, TASVideos rules specify that if a new movie is submitted that obsoletes an old movie, it can't lose time over the original TAS for no reason in certain areas and then just be faster overall due to a few route or trick differences and get published. Rather, it should be as fast or faster throughout all the sections of the game (provided that the new route/strategies don't affect the other portions of the game in a way that slows them down), and then it should incorporate the new timesave. Otherwise, it is likely to be rejected.
I know it's tempting when you find a large timesave in a 2+ hour long TAS to just submit a new TAS with a few improvements that save a couple of minutes, and ignore the TAS being slower than the published TAS in other parts. However, if you want to be able to obsolete a published movie, you need to be able to complete the TAS faster through all sections, even if it does make the TAS more tedious to make.
In the long run, remaking TASes like this is good for you as a whole, as it improves your abilities as a TASer to TAS future games as well, so I would few it more as an opportunity than an inconvenience if I were you.
Sorry for being MIA for almost 2 days after posting this, but unfortunately that's how it has to be sometimes, which is okay I think? Probably not since it's the internet ... Oh well.
Anyway, I agree with everyones critiques and concerns about this new "improved" (if that's what you want to call it) TAS movie.
1. Yes I know now that I can submit a replacement file (which btw I didn't know of until told about so don't yell at me for that please).
2. If this gets rejected it's not that big of a deal to be honest, I am honestly only doing this because I think it's a fun thing to do when I am able to. Don't get me wrong I enjoy making TAS'es and yes I make bad ones so people can yell at me over the internet.
3. If I feel as if I need to improve this with little to no margin for error then I will do so "eventually" (hopefully that's okay).
thanks for reading this! - Technickle
2. If this gets rejected it's not that big of a deal to be honest, I am honestly only doing this because I think it's a fun thing to do when I am able to.
Thank you for your positive attitude, it's very appreciated. I also think that TASing is just a hobby, so being too serious would defeat the purpose.
Technickle wrote:
Don't get me wrong I enjoy making TAS'es and yes I make bad ones so people can yell at me over the internet.
Well, at least try to not waste too much time of the judges and publishers.
Technickle wrote:
3. If I feel as if I need to improve this with little to no margin for error then I will do so "eventually" (hopefully that's okay).
Thank your for your efforts. This site wouldn't exist if people didn't want to keep improving.
Technickle wrote:
Having said that, in the comments you're making to Technickle, you're looking at the situation from the perspectives of an experienced publisher for the website and a senior judge for the website, who each have over 500 player points and lots of published movies on the site. You're not looking at this from the perspective of somebody with 0 accepted movies whose been trying for a year to get a single movie accepted.
Again, don't get me wrong, I'm not defending Technickle's actions, and I understand that you're annoyed with him for wasting your time both in terms of the time it took to judge his movie and the time it took to make and upload an encode for his TAS. I'm just saying that there's 2 sides to every story, and it's important to keep that in mind whenever judging someone's actions.
I'm looking at it from both perspectives, I just needed the author to describe the reasons behind the delay so we could discuss them and explain how it actually works. We didn't just silently reject his previous runs, we provided tons of feedback describing how to get it done right. And yes, this game's nature means it's non-trivial to check how optimal a movie is, so judging it took time for a reason.
Lobsterzelda wrote:
Also, to Technickle, I have something I would like to say about this new submission.
Since there is already a published movie for this category on the website, the standard that new submissions for this category are held to is that they should include all of the time save/speed tricks that the previous TAS included, plus whatever new optimizations were found. To this end, TASVideos rules specify that if a new movie is submitted that obsoletes an old movie, it can't lose time over the original TAS for no reason in certain areas and then just be faster overall due to a few route or trick differences and get published. Rather, it should be as fast or faster throughout all the sections of the game (provided that the new route/strategies don't affect the other portions of the game in a way that slows them down), and then it should incorporate the new timesave. Otherwise, it is likely to be rejected.
I know it's tempting when you find a large timesave in a 2+ hour long TAS to just submit a new TAS with a few improvements that save a couple of minutes, and ignore the TAS being slower than the published TAS in other parts. However, if you want to be able to obsolete a published movie, you need to be able to complete the TAS faster through all sections, even if it does make the TAS more tedious to make.
And apparently that's not true :D Here's my recent judgment that showcases how this works for Vault.
feos wrote:
The part of this run that's new and saves so much time isn't too optimal, as seen in this movie that spawns the corn boss 16 frames faster due to slight movement tweaks.
However the current publication belongs to Vault, and this movie is going there too. And there is a Vault clause that allows some sub-optimality if a new skip has been discovered, because speedrun records are the main purpose of Vault:
"In rare cases, there will be a sloppier movie that is faster than a more optimized movie due to the use of a major skip discovery. In this case, the faster of the two movies is preferred."
I double-checked with admins that the clause is accurate and I understand it correctly, hence I'm relying on it here.
MESHUGGAH displayed interest in improving this submission, but I tried contacting him and couldn't.
Accepting over [2373] NES The California Raisins: The Grape Escape (USA,r2) by MESHUGGAH in 04:51.5.
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.
We didn't just silently reject his previous runs, we provided tons of feedback describing how to get it done right. And yes, this game's nature means it's non-trivial to check how optimal a movie is, so judging it took time for a reason.
I figured that it probably took a while to judge the previous submission. Even if it weren't for the hard-to-check optimality of the game, being over 2 hours long puts it well above the 50th percentile for movie lengths on TASVideos, and I would assume probably over the 90th percentile for SNES games.
feos wrote:
And apparently that's not true :D Here's my recent judgment that showcases how this works for Vault.
With regards to acceptable timeloss in vault movies compared to published runs, how much timeloss is considered acceptable? More specifically, how does that relate to the following rule: "If you found a shortcut that saves 30 seconds, your movie should be faster by at least 30 seconds. Losing time elsewhere for no good reason is unacceptable."
Basically, what I mean is, in what cases can a movie lose time to a published run and be faster overall and get published, and in what cases would this cause a movie to be rejected? Is the rule above only referring to cases where a runner loses a grotesque amount of time (where the gameplay looks noticeably sloppy)? Or is the rule itself obsolete?
If something does not look right in a movie, check it yourself to be sure. However, Judges do not need to thoroughly in-depth test a game as if they themselves were the one trying to TAS it. If it looks good on the surface, and the movie appears to consist of superior play which outperforms casual play and any records elsewhere, it's good enough for TASVideos.
The players must have chances of getting their movie published.
Don't demand them do laboursome optimizations that can't actually be noticed under normal viewing conditions [1]. For example, if a jump performed one frame late still moves the character along its purported trajectory with no interruptions, it is a negligible flaw. If, however, a late jump bumps the character into an obstacle, thus interrupting its movement, it's an easily noticeable mistake.
[1]: Normal viewing conditions refer to real-time playback with no additional indicators to judge the player's performance; i. e., like most people watch these videos.
Notice to new players: Experienced TAS makers often possess a great observation skill for typical mistakes in TAS movies. Mistakes unnoticeable to you might still be noticed by experienced TAS players and the judges. (But of course, we don't know and see everything.)
Similar to overall sub-optimality, this is up to judge's discretion. This is why we want judges to be experienced TASers and at the same time we don't want them to demand unreasonable effort: there's has to be balance.
Make sure the movie is optimal and not sloppy wrote:
This is mostly covered by the Guidelines, but whenever you see something that looks like it has potential for improvement, either try it out yourself or ask the author to address it. Note that the run isn't required to be completely unimprovable, it just should not be sloppy. If it uses sub-optimal strategies all over the place, even if it's not obvious for an untrained eye, but which becomes clear when you actually try to improve it, then it should be rejected for sub-optimality.
Summary: sloppy play has to be visible, it has to be all over the place, and it has to be easily improvable. With this game's nature, improvement only counts when an entire track is improved.
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.
Because I'd rather form my own opinions about the movie after watching it rather than before?
There are some very clear issues with this movie, if you want to disagree with those criticisms that's one thing, but it seems like it doesnt even matter what the criticism is to you.
The instant movie shit is rather poor showing. Why not let people watch it first? Anyways, I found the movie entertaining and I thought quite a bit of effort had been put into it.
He's actually talking about me but this would then be a case of him failing to count. I guess Sesame Street can't teach you everything.
Interesting. Shitting on forum posters for disagreeing with your opinion on a movie. At least I actually watched it first before voting.
Double fun fact for you electricslide since you have selective reading.
The TAS was made and confirmed by the author to be done in 3 weeks since the previous movie's initial submission and we're still trying to understand why the author didn't provide the input and instead went "incognito", do you have an explanation for that or are you going to make another illogical comment about it?
I think you should recuse yourself from posting in the thread since you're obviously biased. Let the movie have a fair hearing.
Because I'd rather form my own opinions about the movie after watching it rather than before?
Literally no one said you had to dislike the movie. Stop making up stuff.
What people are saying is you disregard any kind of criticism because “OMG UR ALL MEAN”, but dont take a second to even understand them. Post your thoughts about the movie all you want, no one minds. But disregarding it like you were is stupid.
“electricslide” wrote:
The instant movie shit is rather poor showing. Why not let people watch it first? Anyways, I found the movie entertaining and I thought quite a bit of effort had been put into it.
And see, if you actually understood the criticism you wouldnt be saying this. You have been on this site for awhile now and you still don’t understand how things work here.
[14:15] <feos> WinDOES what DOSn't
12:33:44 PM <Mothrayas> "I got an oof with my game!"
Mothrayas Today at 12:22: <Colin> thank you for supporting noble causes such as my feet
MemoryTAS Today at 11:55 AM: you wouldn't know beauty if it slapped you in the face with a giant fish
[Today at 4:51 PM] Mothrayas: although if you like your own tweets that's the online equivalent of sniffing your own farts and probably tells a lot about you as a person
MemoryTAS Today at 7:01 PM: But I exert big staff energy honestly lol
Samsara Today at 1:20 PM: wouldn't ACE in a real life TAS just stand for Actually Cease Existing
Literally no one said you had to dislike the movie. Stop making up stuff.
I call it as I see it. It's called 'consensus loading'. When you don't like a movie you immediately rush out to shape the narrative rather than allowing it to form itself.
Had I agreed with your opinion I guarantee you, that you would not have posted what you did.
What people are saying is you disregard any kind of criticism
I have agreed with this on plenty of other movies. You're just sour because I don't agree with you here. Sorry.
I actually watched all the movie and think that they did an excellent job on a movie that's without a current TAS. I'm aware of your previous history with this submitter, but I'd like to hope that a good movie would be accepted regardless. I'd rather see a movie that could be improvable sometime in the future be accepted if we don't currently have a movie up. And I happen to like this game and would like to see a TAS up on it.
My other response is this, if you find his attempt substandard, feel free to submit your own, better TAS in full on the timeline that you're demanding that he do it. If you can't, well, then. Easy to criticize hard to do. And no, a 'single level' submission won't cut it.
dont take a second to even understand them. Post your thoughts about the movie all you want, no one minds. But disregarding it like you were is stupid.
The only person calling other people stupid is you.
I call it as I see it. It's called 'consensus loading'. When you don't like a movie you immediately rush out to shape the narrative rather than allowing it to form itself.
Like what you’re doing right now? You’re the only one trying to change the narrative of what people are saying.
“electricslide” wrote:
Had I agreed with your opinion I guarantee you, that you would not have posted what you did.
What did I do? I dont care what the actual opinion of the movie is, but if you’re going to lie about what is actually being said then I’m going to have a problem with it.
“electricslide” wrote:
I have agreed with this on plenty of other movies. You're just sour because I don't agree with you here. Sorry.
No, I’m sour because you are being willfully ignorant about the criticism.
“electricslide wrote:
I actually watched all the movie and think that they did an excellent job on a movie that's without a current TAS.
See, this right here is why I can tell you’re not reading the actual criticism. There is already a movie of this game available: http://tasvideos.org/4060M.html
The criticism is that this author was making a new version of this movie, AND IT WAS ALREADY FINISHED, but he decided to let the old movie get published before he submitted the improvement. That just wastes staff’s time and makes no sense to do.
On top of that, spike has made it clear that some of the other tracks in this movie are actually slower than in the previous movie: http://tasvideos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=489276#489276
THAT is what the criticism is, it’s not randomly hating on someone for no reason. Why is this so hard for you to understand?
“electricslide” wrote:
My other response is this, if you find his attempt substandard, feel free to submit your own, better TAS in full on the timeline that you're demanding that he do it. If you can't, well, then. Easy to criticize hard to do. And no, a 'single level' submission won't cut it.
I dont need to do so because both feos and spike already pointed out The suboptimalies. You would have known that if you read the criticism.
[14:15] <feos> WinDOES what DOSn't
12:33:44 PM <Mothrayas> "I got an oof with my game!"
Mothrayas Today at 12:22: <Colin> thank you for supporting noble causes such as my feet
MemoryTAS Today at 11:55 AM: you wouldn't know beauty if it slapped you in the face with a giant fish
[Today at 4:51 PM] Mothrayas: although if you like your own tweets that's the online equivalent of sniffing your own farts and probably tells a lot about you as a person
MemoryTAS Today at 7:01 PM: But I exert big staff energy honestly lol
Samsara Today at 1:20 PM: wouldn't ACE in a real life TAS just stand for Actually Cease Existing
My other response is this, if you find his attempt substandard, feel free to submit your own, better TAS in full on the timeline that you're demanding that he do it. If you can't, well, then. Easy to criticize hard to do. And no, a 'single level' submission won't cut it.
You do not get to decide this. A single level submission can cut it if it aptly demonstrates that sloppy play is present throughout an entire submission.
Additionally, we point out potential mistakes, but give a chance for the author to potentially explain these spots. There might be a reason for them that we don't know. This knowledge would be shared amongst the greater audience and can be taken advantage of by somebody who wants to take a look into this game somewhere down the line. If what we spot is truly a mistake, there might be a chance for the author to easily fix what we point out. Either way, this leads to better TASes and can only come about through communication. You are actively discouraging criticism and thus communication. You are discouraging the creation of better TASes.
EDIT: I'd like to point out the following:
electricslide wrote:
Wow, not one, but two, but three calling birds shitting on this movie.
Nobody had even said the movie was bad or even should be rejected prior to your post. There were places pointed out where it seemingly lost time to its predecessor, but that does not strictly make the movie bad. There was a criticism of a decision made by the author in regards to when to submit this improvement but that is not directly a criticism of the movie itself, let alone "shitting on it". Please explain to me how the posts above yours were shitting on the movie.
[16:36:31] <Mothrayas> I have to say this argument about robot drug usage is a lot more fun than whatever else we have been doing in the past two+ hours
[16:08:10] <BenLubar> a TAS is just the limit of a segmented speedrun as the segment length approaches zero
Joined: 10/12/2011
Posts: 6337
Location: The land down under.
electricslide wrote:
EZGames69 wrote:
What people are saying is you disregard any kind of criticism
I have agreed with this on plenty of other movies. You're just sour because I don't agree with you here. Sorry.
Nice meme when we look at recent time. Let's start from the top.
Well we can start with here. - Where the author was told that they could've placed in a userfile in and pass it across at anytime and shows that we wasted our time on the other movie. There's also questionable selections the author has done which they don't address in the submission text nor here which makes it slower in early game. (You know, you'd actually know what we're talking about if you read it).
On Contra III: The Alien Wars. - After the movie was compared to a canned movie.
On TMNT III: The Manhattan Project. - When compared to an old WIP and the subsequent posts you made after.
On EarthBound. - When the author had direct access to another run by two authors that provided it in their circle which they are also apart of, and the file existed before the author submitted.
On EarthBound (again). - Where you've pressured the authors to rush their work.
You can edit these posts at any point, but they've been archived.
Also, I'd like to point out a rule in Post Content.
All posts and messages must remain civilized.
Posts and messages that are or become uncivil are not allowed. The extent of civility (or lack thereof) is determined both by situation and by moderator opinion. Moderators may lock topics that become uncivil. Moderators may also edit or delete offensive posts.
Disruptive posting is not allowed. This includes spamming, making multiple useless topics or posts, or repeatedly going off-topic in a topical thread. In extreme cases, disruptive members will be banned.
I'm not 100% sure, but I'm quite sure that in 4 of those 5 mentioned in that list, you've gone against the rules by being uncivil and disruptive.
electricslide wrote:
The only person calling other people stupid is you.
Nope, EZGames69 is calling you "stupid" if you are disregarding facts that have been provided.
Which has been a common trait for you this year, disregarding the facts.
(and that's a big IF by the way.)
We have also lost track by not talking about this run anymore, much like previous threads that have gone down this path thanks to you.
WebNations/Sabih wrote:
+fsvgm777 never censoring anything.
Disables Comments and Ratings for the YouTube account.Something better for yourself and also others.
(Bold is faster)
I've seen enough honestly just by comparing the first five races to the currently published movie you improve in later areas but you lose time in earlier areas.
This TAS isn't balanced, more can be improved.
Abstaining from voting.
As a reminder. You cannot make the argument about IGT not being valuable when it's shows off the lack of skill and is still completely usable for a quick comparison.
(Like you argued on the Published movie)
Edit: You should also explain the purchases you do throughout the run.
End of Race 1: Gearbox vs Nitro
End of Race 3: Wet Tires
What you've demonstrated here is that getting upgraded Nitro instead of an upgraded Gearbox is not worth it when it's compared.
Especially with the lack of explanation.
