As the most of you probably know, Mario can pretty much choice his level of heigh when he jump (until a max. heigh obv.): the most consecutive frames you press the A button, the higher you jump, simple
In the whole game there will be different obstacles where you can jump less o need very high jumps to get past some tall walls or big gaps, right?
Well, here i am trying to avoid giving Mario that extreme power of jump to the stars always that i can
This is a new TAS idea invented by me (i think lol)
The point of the TAS is just beating the game as fast as possible like in any%, but with a restriction:
Every jump has to be the smallest possible
What does this means in gameplay fact is that is not allowed to press the A button for 2 frames or more, is only allowed to make jumps of 1 frame A press
The only exceptions with more than 1 A presses jumps are a 9 frames jump needed to get to the top pipe of 2º room and 2 consecutive 6 frame jumps to get to bowser area, both in 8-4, being that the best I managed to do
you can change both 6 by just another 9, but my priority is that is better making infinite 8 frames jumps than a single 9 frames jump
Tricks & glitches about the proccess of the run:
- walljump: in any whole with at least 2 blocks of height, if you hit the exact pixel betwen 2 blocks, you have 1 frame window where Mario lands on the below block, and you can jump on that frame, what is called walljump; this is basicaly making a double jump in walls, so basicaly is use constantly like everywhere in the run, making the challenge far to be posible getting to 8-4 by a lot lot of walls where using this is needed
- floating Koopa & Beatle: in 8-1 there are 2 big gaps that where would be imposible to get so far with just 1 frame jump without this glitch because of the big space of air, so what i do is stomping the shells just when they start falling off in a gap, so they just stop because of the stomp and the game detects like if they where on the floor, they just wake up and start walking behind the floor, so i can use them to bounce in the midle of the big gap and get that far
- Others: flagpole glitch, wrong warps, pipe clip in 1-2, etc.; tipical glitches used a lot in any TAS of this game that are also posible with just 1 frame jumps; im not going to give more details about those ones here
time of 5:59;009 from the start, just timed from there and not waiting on the menu for optimal time cause time in the menu also counts
the TAS:
It was a funny TAS to make and I like how it resulted to be
played on FCEUX 2.2.3 with a USA/Japan rom
"describe the game briefly" uh? welp mitical game, Super Mario Bros. for the NES, released in 1985 as the 1º ever original Super Mario Bros saga game, a very fun plataformer game where you have to move the hero, Mario, a plumber, to rescue Princess Peach from the main villian of the game, Bowser, passing throught the whole 32 fantastic levels that this game offers (unless you use wrong warps lol, as i did here in 1-2 and 4-2 to play only 8); everybody should prove this game, and it revolutionated the industry of the videogames, to say the least about it :D
feos: It's rare that a newcomer's SMB submission gets this much attention, but it's a good thing this one did!
The audience didn't enjoy this submission, giving it only 24% (5/3/19) vote support. But it doesn't fit into our LegacyPages/Tier for low-entertainment movies because it has an esoteric goal. Vault only accepts Fastestcompletion and full completion.
But there was quite some discussion about this run's goal, and a few points were made both in favor and against it. Most importantly, we only accept entertaining movies to Alternative, and majority of the audience didn't consider this movie entertaining. I'll try to explain why exactly.
Goal choice is not too important in this tier: esoteric and unorthodox goals are acceptable, but only as long as they make for entertaining movies.
The goal choices should be clear, so it's understood what needs to be accomplished in order to obsolete it.
Arbitrary goal choices need to offer new TAS material to be accepted. Choices which have no goal other than to create a new game branch are rejected.
Clarity of "smallest jumps" is questionable. Several people in the thread were confused about what it means and got it wrong. And the main technical problem with it is that the limit we're approaching with jump height is unclear. If we limit jump length, but not jump count, in some situations a longer jump can be replaced with potentially infinite amount of smaller jumps.
Indeed, this movie uses a higher jump count than in the "fewest presses" record, and a much higher jump count than in the "fewest jumps" record, as you can see on this page I put together. The ratio of jump count to total frame count of this submission is the same as in other SMB branches. Also there are 30% more jumps in this run than in the "any%" record, due to having more jumps per second.
The "weight" of each consecutive "A" press is not defined, so there's no clear way to compare this run to a potential improvement that does more of shorter or fewer of longer jumps. Can we replace one 9-frame jump with two 8-frame jumps? Or with 18 2-frame jumps? Can we replace ten 1-frame jumps with one 10-frame jump? This goal doesn't suggest answers that would make it easy to work with as an objective and clear metric.
See this post for more insight on technical problems with this definition.
In terms of entertainment standards, this run is not up to par with existing SMB branches, and doesn't provide enough surprising and novel content that can't be seen in them.
This movie ends up feeling like an anticlimactic variation of [1715] NES Super Mario Bros. "warps" by HappyLee in 04:57.31, because for each pipe you now need to make a few more jumps, and that doesn't present any technical challenge: longer jump just gets replaced with several shorter ones, and you need to pause on most pipes to perform them.
4444M reminds me of Goldberg machines in how it turns a seemingly simple task into an engineering miracle. "Any%" is then like a human that grabs the ball and skips all the intermediate steps, putting the ball at the finish line. In this movie, it's also a human that skips the machine, but is only allowed to walk on fours for some reason.
Due to these problems, I'm rejecting this submission.
There was recently (once again) a discussion about "arbitrary goals" (and "arbitrary restrictions"), and when is a goal too arbitrary.
IMHO this categorizes as such.
The issue is that it isn't any more or less arbitrary than a "currently-known-minimum amount of A button presses".
This run being rejected feels awkward unless one can prove it didn't use the bare minimum amount of height for each jump (if he held A for 9 frames when 7 or 8 would've sufficed, etc.) since it's, again, no more or no less arbitrary than the accepted "minimum A button challenge".
This runthrough is not "jump as few times as possible", it's "use only the least amount of height when prompted". Does it meet that goal?
Well, as a non-vaultable category it has to be entertaining enough to make it into Moons. If it doesn't, the nature of the category does not even have to be considered by the judge.
I found this entertaining enough to vote yes. I’m with Radiant; “only smallest jumps” feels too arbitrary. However, I also agree that if “fewest jumps” is a valid category, then “least jumping” is as well.
EDIT: I did some thinking and realized why this feels arbitrary. "Only smallest jumps" cannot stand as a category on its own. By itself, "only smallest jumps" could mean 15 smallest jumps, it could mean 1 million smallest jumps. It's not a metric, but is instead a self-imposed gameplay limitation, similar to foregoing glitches. It requires the "shortest time" goal as well to make it a meaningful run, and give a metric by which a future run could obsolete it.
In contrast, "fewest jumps" can stand on its own. If you took the time component away, a "fewest jumps" run would still give a well-defined metric by which the run can be measured, and subsequently obsoleted. Same would be true for "fewest frames jumping".
Well, as a non-vaultable category it has to be entertaining enough to make it into Moons. If it doesn't, the nature of the category does not even have to be considered by the judge.
I feel entertainment isn't the main focus here since we have a run where someone waits in the floor for 5+ minutes of the same levels and almost the exact same screens (some differ) as the warps any% and had almost no actual run discussion other than arguing if it should even be added.
It had "Yes" votes because of who submitted it. The same reason anything Masterjun submissions gets tons of Yes votes, even if there is literally NOTHING that can be entertaining (unless you just wanted to see the credits real fast?)
So what were the votes on that?
- No 25% [ 27 ]
- Yes 59% [ 62 ]
- Meh 15% [ 16 ]
A popular game submitted by popular authors will get lots of votes. The key difference is that Masterjun's SMB3 is not an arbitrary goal---the poll and thread were to determine Moons, which it, for whatever reason, got.
The SMB1 arbitrary jump amount got Moons due to votes because people saw HappyLee and SMB1. The actual thread no one commented on its interest factor---because there just isn't any, it's literally waiting in a floor for just over half of the run.
Should this run in this thread be accepted?
Yeah, if the arbitrary jump amount one was, and it was.
The key difference is that Masterjun's SMB3 is not an arbitrary goal---the poll and thread were to determine Moons, which it, for whatever reason, got.
First of all, I disagree. I believe those submissions have yes votes because people see those submissions as worth voting yes for, and I have no reason to think otherwise. (Same with no and meh votes.)
Second, even if people vote for options for whatever reasons, it's not like we (who are not judges) can do anything about it. Why care so much about an online poll?
Third, those submissions are accepted, published and done with. It's time to move on.
The discussion was precisely about whether or not people got entertained by that other run, and about clarity of the goal. Most people were entertained, and most people considered the goal clear. Therefore it became a new Moon branch.
Acumenium wrote:
It had "Yes" votes because of who submitted it.
I already called you out on mindreading several times, you ignored it several times, and you're doing it once again. Stop it. Don't hallucinate reasons for people to give their votes on something. Collect actual data of what they say and how they explain it, and use that instead. Because you're assuming they're not honest, which means you're not honest yourself, or you're in denial of the reality you don't like.
Moreover, saying the audience is biased because people just personally like the authors completely disregards what happened in their previous submission.
Acumenium wrote:
The key difference is that Masterjun's SMB3 is not an arbitrary goal---the poll and thread were to determine Moons, which it, for whatever reason, got.
Stop hallucinating reality and presenting that as an undeniable proof that your uneducated opinion is the only one that's right. Start checking things you claim to be real. I called you out on that as well in the other thread and you decided to just move here with similar nonsense.
Acumenium wrote:
The SMB1 arbitrary jump amount got Moons due to votes because people saw HappyLee and SMB1. The actual thread no one commented on its interest factor---because there just isn't any, it's literally waiting in a floor for just over half of the run.
Should this run in this thread be accepted?
Yeah, if the arbitrary jump amount one was, and it was.
We've spent several pages explaining to you how it works and why "known minimum" is not "arbitrary number". You've lost that argument there and you're repeating the same nonsense once again in a different place. Stop it.
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.
Voting no. I feel that this movie did not bring anything new to the table compared to the minimum A presses movie, and the route did not diverge significantly from any% except for a couple of pits in 8–1 and 8–2. I found the turtle-pipe-climb in 8–4 interesting though.
While most of the movie did 1-frame A-press jumps, there were a couple of several-frame A presses too, which made the movie category somewhat inconsistent.
Joined: 11/14/2014
Posts: 811
Location: South Pole, True Land Down Under
I remember my first attempt at a full game submission, and it was certainly an arbitrary category. The selection of the game helped a lot, but in the end...it wasn't accepted abroad by the community.
Since then, I have come to focus primarily on any% as my top goal, followed by 100%,
and finally low%. For me, when it comes to glitched runs...it depends on the technical side of how it was performed, for rating its entertainment. After all those, play-arounds are the only other categories that I really love watching.
Barring the fact that arbitrary goals could reach the level of moons for entertainment, I don't see the value in seeking endless categories. If every category was accepted, this site would blow up with publications that will devalue the lure for enthusiast who want to see the limitations and available entertainment, where their favorite games is concerned. I draw the line when the game has been exhausted in the aforementioned categories....as these new goal choices contain movements that could have very well been used as filler for entertaining during a boring part or less technical area to traverse.
I tend to start loosing my attraction for TASes when there is nothing substantial to showcase, so I stick with the obvious....be faster.
No vote.
I recently discovered that if you haven't reached a level of frustration with TASing any game, then you haven't done your due diligence.
----
SOYZA: Are you playing a game?
NYMX: I'm not playing a game, I'm TASing.
SOYZA: Oh...so its not a game...Its for real?
----
Anybody got a Quantum computer I can borrow for 20 minutes?
Nevermind...eien's 64 core machine will do. :)
----
BOTing will be the end of all games. --NYMX
First of all, I disagree. I believe those submissions have yes votes because people see those submissions as worth voting yes for, and I have no reason to think otherwise. (Same with no and meh votes.)
Second, even if people vote for options for whatever reasons, it's not like we (who are not judges) can do anything about it. Why care so much about an online poll?
Third, those submissions are accepted, published and done with. It's time to move on.
It's true, most of the time the polls aren't actually understood by anyone voting. Why didn't the aforementioned SMB3 video get Moons, though? The Judges took it upon themselves to ignore the results of a poll that had the over 80% ratio that is supposed to mean Moons?
The poll needs to actually matter and be concise. Is it a "should this run be accepted" poll, or is it "was this entertaining"? Why is the poll used as both? When the Judge randomly decides to ignore the results of a poll or to change what the poll means, why get annoyed when people are saying "Yes vote, should be submitted. Not entertaining"? They're the ones muddying the waters and complaining that it's muddy?
Yes, the wait-in-walls/ABC run was already accepted, but using the same logic that accepted it, this run should be, too.
We now know that polls do not matter whatsoever for entertainment (comments for the wait-in-walls/ABC run weren't particularly positive, most just defending its right to be submitted) if the Judge does or doesn't like a video.
So the next question is, do past runs impact what future runs may be submitted? If so, objectively, this run needs to be accepted, as the polls not only do not matter but a run with a literally arbitrary, everchanging goal was accepted.
feos wrote:
We've spent several pages explaining to you how it works and why "known minimum" is not "arbitrary number". You've lost that argument there and you're repeating the same nonsense once again in a different place. Stop it.
Yo Venom, who's "we"?
And yes, "known minimum" is the definition of arbitrary.
Arbitrary:
- based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.
Both "jumping with the shortest height possible whenever prompted to jump" and "jumping as few times as currently known to be possible" are both arbitrary goals. Actually, one may argue the former isn't, as it has a clear answer (especially if it is disallowing entering walls/etc.) whereas the latter does not, meaning it isn't an inherently personal whim or random choice but within a clearly defined system.
The same logic would apply to make "walkathon" not an arbitrary goal as it has a clearly defined goal.
You cannot tell me with any seriousness that the wait-in-walls/ABC challenge had a serious poll where the people who voted thought it meant a poll for entertainment when it is a boring ten minutes of waiting inside the floor waiting for enemies to finally move and almost every comment is defending the run's right to be submitted rather than a single comment on the actual video.
Why didn't the aforementioned SMB3 video get Moons, though? The Judges took it upon themselves to ignore the results of a poll that had the over 80% ratio that is supposed to mean Moons?
Where are you getting this 80% number from?
[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
Samsara.
http://tasvideos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=505232#505232
Although not mentioning a ratio, the page for Moons is interesting: http://tasvideos.org/Moons.html
"The dominant criterion here is entertainment value to the users. This will be assessed via votes, comments, and views."
"comments"
Comments defending a run's right to be submitted... don't sound very good for a run meant to provide entertainment.
"These movies must be impressive, attempt to entertain the audience even when it does not save time."
Who does waiting in the floor for enemies to move impress? Apparently, not the talkative viewerbase.
ZakatosMyselfBrunoVisnadiNxCyKung KnutSamsara
This proves you're not reading the threads you try to bring controversy to. But to still keep things controversial, you're reading selectively. And then forgetting what it was.
Acumenium wrote:
And yes, "known minimum" is the definition of arbitrary.
Arbitrary:
- based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.
Why?
We make these movies because they are entertaining to watch, and because we are curious how far a game can be pushed. The process of creating them is also a form of problem-solving and challenge to our intellect and ingenuity.
If a child receives a box containing an expensive toy as a birthday present, it's possible that he'll enjoy the box more than the toy. This is creativity. We're doing the same for these games. Instead of walking on the paths created for us, we create our own paths, our own legs and so on. And we're not listening to people who say "you can't do that!". Just like children.
Both "jumping with the shortest height possible whenever prompted to jump" and "jumping as few times as currently known to be possible" are both arbitrary goals. Actually, one may argue the former isn't, as it has a clear answer (especially if it is disallowing entering walls/etc.) whereas the latter does not, meaning it isn't an inherently personal whim or random choice but within a clearly defined system.
The same logic would apply to make "walkathon" not an arbitrary goal as it has a clearly defined goal.
Being obsessed with a single word won't help you make a point. Because, as Samsara explained already, "arbitrariness" is not even our primary criterion when accepting new branches.
Samsara wrote:
For new branches, we want minimal content overlap, i.e every published run of a game should be significantly different enough so that people never feel like they're watching the same run twice.
Acumenium wrote:
You cannot tell me with any seriousness that the wait-in-walls/ABC challenge had a serious poll where the people who voted thought it meant a poll for entertainment when it is a boring ten minutes of waiting inside the floor waiting for enemies to finally move
As with any entertainment based poll, the goal is to let people express their subjective feelings and tastes. If they like the run and they find it different enough from existing branches, it's published. That's all.
Acumenium wrote:
almost every comment is defending the run's right to be submitted rather than a single comment on the actual video.
It's true, most of the time the polls aren't actually understood by anyone voting.
Stop pretending you know what people think. Stop pretending your ignorance and selective reading prove that things you don't know about don't exist. Most of the posts I linked above talk exactly about whether or not the movie was entertaining. And the ratio of people entertained is about the same as in poll votes.
Acumenium wrote:
Why didn't the aforementioned SMB3 video get Moons, though? The Judges took it upon themselves to ignore the results of a poll that had the over 80% ratio that is supposed to mean Moons?
No. The question is where are you seeing 80% of anything in SMB3 GEG.
Acumenium wrote:
The poll needs to actually matter and be concise. Is it a "should this run be accepted" poll, or is it "was this entertaining"?
It was "should this run be accepted" in 2004-2012, and it's "was this entertaining" since 2012.
Acumenium wrote:
Why is the poll used as both?
Because some people subjectively like to use it as something it isn't. And there's no way to order them to only use it as one thing, because it's impossible to enforce, and we don't want to pretend that we can know their thoughts, in advance or after the fact. We assume good faith. The only thing we do not allow regarding polls is having multiple alt accounts to mess with statistics.
Acumenium wrote:
When the Judge randomly decides to ignore the results of a poll or to change what the poll means, why get annoyed when people are saying "Yes vote, should be submitted. Not entertaining"? They're the ones muddying the waters and complaining that it's muddy?
So far you're randomly hallucinating reality again, conveniently accusing others for things you didn't properly verify.
Acumenium wrote:
Yes, the wait-in-walls/ABC run was already accepted, but using the same logic that accepted it, this run should be, too.
This movie is an impressive technical achievement and while it wasn't unanimous, it entertained a large majority of the audience (75% approval, 8% disapproval).
This submission has 21% approval, 65% disapproval. There's no way to apply the same logic to both and end up accepting both based on that logic.
adelikat wrote:
While it is an atypical goal choice, it is one that has clearly defined rules.
Furthermore, the publication demonstrates many techniques that other publications do not offer, and distinguishes itself in gameplay from those other categories even for the general audience.
We now know that polls do not matter whatsoever for entertainment (comments for the wait-in-walls/ABC run weren't particularly positive, most just defending its right to be submitted) if the Judge does or doesn't like a video.
Stop blaming judges for your consistent ignorance. Most of ABC SMB posts are in favor of the movie.
And there's no such thing as "right to be submitted". It has never been a thing and I'm seeing that phrase for the first time in my life. You can submit absolutely anything that is technically possible to submit, but not everything will be accepted and published.
Acumenium wrote:
So the next question is, do past runs impact what future runs may be submitted? If so, objectively, this run needs to be accepted, as the polls not only do not matter but a run with a literally arbitrary, everchanging goal was accepted.
Oh, that's a new accusation. "Everchanging", huh? It has been "fewest jumps" from start to end, pretty consistently. And no, most of the audience didn't agree with your stance that ABC is arbitrary. Deal with it.
This is the last time I'm doing your reading homework. This is the last time I'm wasting time on deconstructing your nonsense accusations. Enough information has been provided. If you can't work with information, stop participating in discussion that require reading and being logical.
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.
Let me just quickly double down on a comment that feos mentions to you so you can get more clarity about it.
feos wrote:
No. The question is where are you seeing 80% of anything in SMB3 GEG.
Acumenium if you actually bothered to do your homework using the aforementioned SMB3 movie then you would know that the game's average entertainment is 3.1.
What that means is that if it did get a Moon publication it would've been shafted directly into Vault with its ratings much like Tekken 3 and Tobal 2 received in the past.
WebNations/Sabih wrote:
+fsvgm777 never censoring anything.
Disables Comments and Ratings for the YouTube account.Something better for yourself and also others.
If you're going to cite something I said, maybe don't cherry pick it:
As a general rule, I'm only confident on a Moon tier/hack acceptance decision if there's a fairly high number of votes (10+, ideally 15+), if the ratio is around 80-85% at minimum, and if there's a good number of posts in the thread that in and of themselves are confidently entertained without needing to add modifiers as to why they voted Yes.
You picked what I consider the least important part of my own personal metric and apparently decided "Yep, that's the only requirement, and that's how all Judges do it!" I already don't appreciate the holier-than-thou attitude in your posts, where you're basically doing nothing but backseat judging everything using your own poor interpretation of our rules, but I'm not going to sit here and let you throw me under the bus for that poor interpretation. The funny thing is, that 80% thing is not even an accurate thing to cite here: SMB3 GEG didn't even get close to 80%. feos pointed out the numbers on it in his last post, 58% Yes plus (15/2)% Meh averages out to 67% support. Coincidentally, "minimum A presses" actually DID surpass 80%:
74% Yes plus (16/2)% Meh = 82% support. If that is what you actually think the standardized, sitewide metric is, then I'm really not sure why you're arguing the way you are. If you want certain aspects to matter more, whether it be thread posts or votes or whatever, you have to convince the audience to put more stock into them. We literally cannot decide a run's tier without the audience. If they're getting things wrong, we're going to get things wrong in turn. If they're confident about everything, we're going to be confident about everything.
You're trying to argue that ABC is objectively not entertaining, when entertainment level is not and cannot be an objective thing. I'm actually starting to feel like your argument is "I didn't like this run, so it should have been rejected, and I'm pissed off that you didn't listen to me specifically". Sure, I appreciate the extra opinions on workbench submissions, I really wish more people would chime in with their own opinions, but if you're going to make insulting accusations towards the Judges like you've been doing, then I really think you'd be better off taking some time to understand the site before making another post criticizing us.
TASvideos Admin and acting Senior Judge 💙 | CohostwarmCabin wrote:
You shouldn't need a degree in computer science to get into this hobby.
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.
Using the current polls for accepted runs when they're for whatever reason not closed after accepting is funny. I've personally voted No on a great many videos long after they were accepted, even though the Poll itself now means nothing.
The point still stands---this run should absolutely be accepted if a similar run that consists of no entertainment value of just waiting in a floor for ten minutes was accepted.
The only reason this run should be rejected is if it failed to complete its goal, as in, if it had some jumps that went longer than actually required.
when entertainment level is not and cannot be an objective thing
To a certain point, it could be. Objectively, an auto-scroller or any point in a game where you have to wait for something to occur is not entertaining. That is the entirety of the "press A 63 times" run.
And yes, I'll keep calling it that! It's the only way you can make it not arbitrary since it's a clearly defined goal that isn't random or amorphous. If you want it to not be called arbitrary, it's the "press A 63 times" run then. You can't have it be both not arbitrary and not "press A 63 times".
"Most Judges" didn't agree with anything. It only takes one, and that's all that happened. "Most voters" didn't agree with anything, even the Judges agree that the poll is poorly understood and poorly utilized. "Most commenters" were literally defending the run's right to be submitted rather than saying anything about the actual run.
Adelikat found five whole seconds of the ten minute waitfest entertaining? Wow, put it in Stars then! /s Yes, a few of the tricks were entertaining and not seen elsewhere... then nothing happens, for minutes at a time. Objectively, that isn't interesting. There are a whole host of interesting or entertaining glitches or tricks that runs here do not use, because they either lose time or cause softlocks. Should we have softlock% as a branch now?
The irony of a troll going after me for using the word "arbitrary" (which I don't think I was even the first to use when referring to challenge/variant runs) as they myopically cherry pick and focus on minor details to "get the win".
Acumenium, chill with your attitude. You are being extremely disruptive.
[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
Acumenium, chill with your attitude. You are being extremely disruptive.
I have not responded to anyone with rudeness or hostility, despite receiving exactly that.
Or are you saying I am not allowed to respond to people directly talking to me because of their tone?
Your tone of sarcasm is quite obvious. Acting like a martyr is also not winning you any favors in this department either.
The amount of cherry picking you have performed is also not productive in the slightest.
If this continues your posting privileges will be taken away.
[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
So the next question is, do past runs impact what future runs may be submitted? If so, objectively, this run needs to be accepted, as the polls not only do not matter but a run with a literally arbitrary, everchanging goal was accepted.
Acumenium wrote:
Objectively, an auto-scroller or any point in a game where you have to wait for something to occur is not entertaining.
Acumenium wrote:
Yes, a few of the tricks were entertaining and not seen elsewhere... then nothing happens, for minutes at a time. Objectively, that isn't interesting.
Link to video
I think you mean in your opinion, rather than objectively. That's why you're not faced with complete agreement: entertainment is a matter of opinion, not facts.
For example, I think that autoscrollers can be the most entertaining part of a run, as you have the freedom to show off strategies and glitches that aren't part of the fastest movement. This movie is a good example: [4452] SNES Tiny Toon Adventures: Buster Busts Loose! by EZGames69 in 18:48.52Acumenium wrote:
a run with a literally arbitrary, everchanging goal was accepted.
Do you also have a problem with the 38 published "maximum score" runs? The Starred Ikaruga movie achieves a score of 50,230,200, and this Touhou movie achieves a score of 2,429,908,660: I'm sure these scores may one day be beaten, but these movie completed their goals all the same!
See also the 5 published "Low%" runs. In particular, Super Metroid had a 14% movie obsoleted by a 13% movie: you can objectively measure an improvement here, despite a movie goal that aims to minimise something other than time.
What I'm trying to make clear is that these goals are not "literally arbitrary, everchanging". They're aiming to minimise or maximise something, just like fastest completion movies aim to minimise time. Do all fastest completion movies complete a game in a known minimum number of frames? Of course not! The goal is to aim for the minimum or maximum of something, and if that's one day improved, that's... well, the goal of the site to showcase :)
Hopefully that explains how unusual goals can still be measured objectively. A 62 A press movie would be a clear improvement to that other publication. You're allowed to find that movie boring, but that wasn't the consensus, and it's goal choice certainly doesn't mean that this run needs to be accepted. For complaints about that movie, this thread isn't the place.
Joined: 12/28/2013
Posts: 396
Location: Rio de Janeiro, Brasil
Acumenium wrote:
A lot of nonsense
Entertainment is subjective and most humans beings simply don't find this run to be entertaining enough to justify a new category. It offers some nice walljump combos but that's about it. The same does not apply to the other run, and you can't change that by stating it offers "no entertainment value and just waits in a floor for ten minutes".
Your absolute cognitive inability to get a grasp on reality is putting you among the most unbearable people to ever have joined this site. Stop repeating the same wrong statements and get over the fact that most people don't share your sense of entertainment.
So the next question is, do past runs impact what future runs may be submitted? If so, objectively, this run needs to be accepted, as the polls not only do not matter but a run with a literally arbitrary, everchanging goal was accepted.
Acumenium wrote:
Objectively, an auto-scroller or any point in a game where you have to wait for something to occur is not entertaining.
Acumenium wrote:
Yes, a few of the tricks were entertaining and not seen elsewhere... then nothing happens, for minutes at a time. Objectively, that isn't interesting.
Link to video
I think you mean in your opinion, rather than objectively. That's why you're not faced with complete agreement: entertainment is a matter of opinion, not facts.
For example, I think that autoscrollers can be the most entertaining part of a run, as you have the freedom to show off strategies and glitches that aren't part of the fastest movement. This movie is a good example: [4452] SNES Tiny Toon Adventures: Buster Busts Loose! by EZGames69 in 18:48.52Acumenium wrote:
a run with a literally arbitrary, everchanging goal was accepted.
Do you also have a problem with the 38 published "maximum score" runs? The Starred Ikaruga movie achieves a score of 50,230,200, and this Touhou movie achieves a score of 2,429,908,660: I'm sure these scores may one day be beaten, but these movie completed their goals all the same!
See also the 5 published "Low%" runs. In particular, Super Metroid had a 14% movie obsoleted by a 13% movie: you can objectively measure an improvement here, despite a movie goal that aims to minimise something other than time.
What I'm trying to make clear is that these goals are not "literally arbitrary, everchanging". They're aiming to minimise or maximise something, just like fastest completion movies aim to minimise time. Do all fastest completion movies complete a game in a known minimum number of frames? Of course not! The goal is to aim for the minimum or maximum of something, and if that's one day improved, that's... well, the goal of the site to showcase :)
Hopefully that explains how unusual goals can still be measured objectively. A 62 A press movie would be a clear improvement to that other publication. You're allowed to find that movie boring, but that wasn't the consensus, and it's goal choice certainly doesn't mean that this run needs to be accepted. For complaints about that movie, this thread isn't the place.
I wouldn't say I used it wrong at all. In the first example, it is objective that this run should be accepted if we agree on another mentioned reason of "past runs impact what is accepted in the future".
I have never seen auto-scrollers be called "entertaining" since they demonstrate exactly no player ability or skill. Twirling around, repetitive jumps, hops, ducking/etc. for minutes on end, that's not particularly entertaining to keep seeing. When you're waiting for disappearing blocks or whatever to come back, sure, but for minutes, it falls flat, because there's little that can be entertaining about seeing a game play itself.
Touhou/Ikaruga and other bullet hell games avoid this by making the screens actually significant and involve player interaction on every screen, similar to Double Dragon or something but without the ability to "breathe" between enemy screens. The tank stages or airship spaces of Mario 3 require you to press A a few times every 30 seconds, sometimes holding right. They're not particularly interesting.
I guess we can split the difference but I'm pretty sure most would agree that watching paint dry (or watching nothing at all happen for minutes in a video game) is, objectively, boring. The issue is, if it's okay for it to be boring. If you're doing a 100% runthrough of Pokemon Emerald, there's a spot where you literally have to wait for two minutes in place. That's boring, but required for the goal. To be fair, it is also only two minutes in a many hour video... whereas in the ABC challenge, it IS the run.
So should it be accepted on the basis that it is entertaining or on the basis that it achieves a complicated subgoal? If the latter, then this run should be accepted. If the former, I have a lot of questions.
Those should be called "high score" runs. I have no issue with their existence but calling them "maximum score" sounds awfully absolute unless you're absolutely sure they will never be beaten---if that's the case, I'm not sure why you mentioned them being one day beaten?
Low% is objectively measurable, as the game actually does keep track. Completely fair for 13% to obsolete 14%. I wouldn't really compare it to this, unless SMB1 had a tracker for A button presses.
The SNES version of A Link To The Past has no tracker for how many times you've taken damage, or how many times you've used [x] item (sword included). Making a no damage run or no sword run an arbitrary goal.
The GBA version of A Link To The Past DOES have a tracker for both, although it requires beating the bonus dungeon to see. It can be accessed and fully played through with zero bugs or quirks with an easy warp glitch though, if you don't want to or can't play Four Swords. This makes a no damage or no sword run not arbitrary similar to the low% goal of Super Metroid, as the game actually DOES keep track, making it a score that can be objectively measured.
A low level run of an RPG like Final Fantasy is arbitrary as it has no clearly defined goal and what is considered "low level" will change. A no random battle run, however is not (similar to the never pressing B button SMB1 run) and in recent remasters or re-releases, is something they support entirely with enabling "no random battles" via a button press!
BrunoVisnadi wrote:
Acumenium wrote:
A lot of nonsense
Entertainment is subjective and most humans beings simply don't find this run to be entertaining enough to justify a new category. It offers some nice walljump combos but that's about it. The same does not apply to the other run, and you can't change that by stating it offers "no entertainment value and just waits in a floor for ten minutes".
Your absolute cognitive inability to get a grasp on reality is putting you among the most unbearable people to ever have joined this site. Stop repeating the same wrong statements and get over the fact that most people don't share your sense of entertainment.
You're being highly disruptive---trolling, as it is. Editing quotes to appear as a "lot of nonsense".
Objectively, the other run waits in a floor for minutes... and minutes...
Is this supposed to be entertaining? If so, why? And how?
Here's my bottom line here (since as usual, I don't actually matter at all here as the verdict was already reached) before I get yelled at again for other people being rude and disruptive: This run should be rejected only on the basis it does not complete its goal---as in, if someone can prove it has a single jump that went too long and was not actually "the minimum" it could be. Any other rejection reason makes no sense given that the ABC run was accepted.
I would like to kindly request everyone to stop responding to Acumenium's posts in this thread, and instead use it for its main (and only) purpose: providing feedback on the submission in question.
And yes, Acumenium, I've already told you that your attitude isn't going unnoticed. You don't simply disagree with other members—you're being rude (1) and repeatedly misconstrue or misrepresent their words (2) in threads where it doesn't belong (3) because you don't understand how things work but insist that you do (4), despite moderators telling you to stop (5). That's five things you're doing that explicitly aren't appreciated. And the staff are getting fed up with it.
This is your last warning before your ability to post is revoked.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
74% Yes plus (16/2)% Meh = 82% support. If that is what you actually think the standardized, sitewide metric is, then I'm really not sure why you're arguing the way you are. If you want certain aspects to matter more, whether it be thread posts or votes or whatever, you have to convince the audience to put more stock into them. We literally cannot decide a run's tier without the audience. If they're getting things wrong, we're going to get things wrong in turn. If they're confident about everything, we're going to be confident about everything.
You're trying to argue that ABC is objectively not entertaining, when entertainment level is not and cannot be an objective thing. I'm actually starting to feel like your argument is "I didn't like this run, so it should have been rejected, and I'm pissed off that you didn't listen to me specifically". Sure, I appreciate the extra opinions on workbench submissions, I really wish more people would chime in with their own opinions, but if you're going to make insulting accusations towards the Judges like you've been doing, then I really think you'd be better off taking some time to understand the site before making another post criticizing us.
