Joined: 6/28/2004
Posts: 219
Location: Raccoon City
asteron wrote:
I don't think this topic warrants this much discussion... even ignoring all the precedent, allowing 100% will yield the runner more flexibility which can only lead to better movies. Good movies is what the site is all about. But if a runner feels like using 63% than by all means do.
did you read any of this thread before you posted?
the argument is about whether 100% is realistically feasible, and based on this, deciding whether it is ethically responsible for the TAS community to do this. The 100% tilt thing may be fine to use, but using the logic of your argument, we should allow a tilt-cart dump run of each rom that just instantly teleports to the end and pass it off as a legitimate TAS.
did you read any of this thread before you posted?
the argument is about whether 100% is realistically feasible, and based on this, deciding whether it is ethically responsible for the TAS community to do this. The 100% tilt thing may be fine to use, but using the logic of your argument, we should allow a tilt-cart dump run of each rom that just instantly teleports to the end and pass it off as a legitimate TAS.
I don't see how that would be entertaining or even implied by my point and if you have indeed read the thread you would have already seen my earlier posts regarding the precedent of ignoring 'realistic feasibility' (up+down, perfect alternating input, etc).
This signature is much better than its previous version.
Joined: 6/4/2006
Posts: 97
Location: Everywhere including nowhere
There was an arcade cabinet like that once. It could read further than the piece of plastic underneath the foot pedal would allow. Shortly after this was discovered, a lot of people got in trouble for removing that piece of plastic at their local arcade.
Honestly, though, I must say that 100% should be perfectly acceptable, simply because, if you sliced the cord from a controller and hooked it up to your central nervous system, you could convince the N64 that you're tilting the analog stick 100% in any direction. (Okay that's a bad analogy, deal with it)
Guys, guys. Think about what you're arguing here. Realistic feasability. You're arguing that it might not be ethical to do something that isn't possible on a N64 controller during NORMAL OPERATION. It is possible to reach 100% by either doing a stick recalibration or taking the controller apart, both of which have been done, I'm sure.
With that in mind, think about this. SNES: Up + Down glitches. That's not possible on a console unless you take the controller apart, yet we still use it on this site. Some of us do, anyways. So please, let's just drop this conversation before someone hurts themselves.
With that in mind, think about this. SNES: Up + Down glitches. That's not possible on a console unless you take the controller apart, yet we still use it on this site. Some of us do, anyways.
Yeah, and some people hate that we allow that, too!
put yourself in my rocketpack if that poochie is one outrageous dude
Although I don't like the idea of the 100% control stick tilt, logic forces me to allow you guys to use it. This is a tool-assisted run, after all, so you're free to use any tools you want as long as the game itself (the engine, the speed, the randomness) isn't changed. As this unrealistic controller setting is merely a tool to control the player's input, I can't really argue against it.
For fun, I am going to quote what I said 3 years ago:
Weatherton wrote:
... no matter what controller you have, you can force it to be aligned to allow 100% in any direction (and realign real-time to get 100% in other directions)...
I guess, at the time, I didn't make it clear enough, but by "real-time" I was referring to the fact that this did not introduce any pause. The only issue is that it, likely, introduces one frame of delay. The delay would be in terms of a missed opportunity to provide useful input. However, it may be possible to perform the realignment in between the game's input frames. I don't feel like testing it right now though.
Sorry to double post, but the two year break seems to warrant it:
I just found some great pictures of the beta N64 controller and I thought it was very interesting that it appears that the controller allowed for the full range (i.e. a box) of input. Take a look for yourself:
http://www.assemblergames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=17157
(The gray one is the one I'm referring to).
I always thought that I would have preferred the larger control stick, the Ultra 64 one looks the best imho.
I have a Nintendo 64. You can recalibrate the joystick with R+L+Start how many times you want and it doesn't pause. I used it sometimes, in real time, to go faster in some games. So I agree that 100% is possible.
Noob Irdoh, that's a point that was made a small ways back in this (very old) thread, but thank you for providing an independent confirmation.
The interesting thing about the controllers I linked to is that the beta controller (From not long before the N64 was released) actually appears to have offered the full 100% in all directions. I'm guessing that they realized that users would often need to be able to run exactly forward, backwards, or side to side, which is why they would have had to add the notches in those places, which would require them taking in the corners. It is a solid design choice but, still, that controller's joystick box is worth mentioning, I think. I also think it may show that some of the early games were specifically designed with 100% movement speed in mind.
I have a Nintendo 64. You can recalibrate the joystick with R+L+Start how many times you want and it doesn't pause. I used it sometimes, in real time, to go faster in some games. So I agree that 100% is possible.
in which games does it go faster if it's 100% instead of the normal range? i feel like there's no difference in any games that i've tried, like goldeneye for example.
@nfq
Goldeneye is a prime example of a game that makes a difference. In the standard control style (1.1) you can travel significantly faster if you realign the controller while playing. Players call it using "cruise control." Of course, this was just a stop-gap solution for players who were extremely accustomed to the 1.1 style as the 1.2 control style makes the control stick limitations less of an issue.
The issue is this: When using the control stick, it is impossible to achieve the extreme corners of the control box [e.g. (+100,+100);(+100,-100);(-100,-100); and (-100,+100)] without realigning the control stick to reach them because the corners of the control stick are notched in. When using the C-buttons, in Goldeneye, the designers made it so that, for example, C-UP + C-Right = (+100,+100). So, by switching to 1.2, it allows players to use the fastest standard motion in the game; the full strafe. Of course, the players still have a limitation on the control stick due to aiming, but that is less of an issue in this game.
hm, if that is true, then how is it possible that people can for example get 54 dam agent with 1.1 without cruise control? it's just 1 second from WR, and you need a very good run to get 53. if the range was 100% with 1.2 and standard 64% with 1.1, you probably wouldn't even be able to get 55.
the reason the speedrunners use cruise control is because you can turn without having to lose speed, but i've never heard that it would go faster forward with cruise control or with 1.2 than 1.1 without cruise.
I've definitely played games where cruise control resulted in greater speed in a direction. I believe it happens in Banjo Kazooie, but it's been a while. I KNOW it happens, though, and not even just on N64.
