This topic is for the purpose of discussing #913: Tailz's NES Cabal in 20:59.07

Great job with this Tailz! It's really entertaining to watch this video. Voting YES!

Good job, Tailz! Really interesting movie, this game is well suited for TAS I think. It was really fun seeing you kick those soldiers butts, as if they were helpless kittens :) Voting YES!

i think the goals were these: 1. Takes no damage/deaths 2. Destroy all scenery 3. Uses no warps/passwords (there are none) 4. Beat the game as fast as possible Unless taking damage, or not having to destroy all scenery would make no difference. But i see some time was lost destroying scenery. So that was a priority versus beating the game as fast as possible, not the oposite. Did you end the recording as soon as possible? it didn't look like. You input your name and then you go back to title screen to finish the movie. Should have ended upon entering last letter, i think.

But i see some time was lost destroying scenery. So that was a priority versus beating the game as fast as possible, not the oposite.

The scenery self-destructs when the level ends, which can delay the level-end sequence a lot (several seconds) depending on what scenery it was. I don't know if all of the scenery that was destroyed here actually saved time (haven't watched it quite yet), but if done perfectly it should be faster to destroy them than to leave them alone, except for pieces that disintegrate faster than invincible ones that are on the same level.

Yes but he let some of the scenery to be destroyed last, so he had to wait for it to crumble before doing the victory dance. That's what it looked like.

There was a level or two where I destroyed the scenery before the level ended, but it was still crumbling. That was the case in level 1-2.

Yay I got another vote! Thanks to whoever did it! Also, thanks to everyone who as already voted and enjoyed the movie.

It's a good run. Though, having seen the entire thing, I'm starting to think Cabal is really boring. I'd definitely vote yes if I weren't a lurker. Good show.

Hmm.. What to say about this. 1. Why don't you shoot the "white dressed" guys who are trying to kill you.. 2. It also seems that it should save time if u stayed in the exact center of the screen while fireing the last shot. saving several seconds. I dont know much about the game(actually first time seeing it).

I didn't kill the white soldiers in 1-3 because I didn't know how to at the time. The white soldiers roll out of the way when you shoot at them, and it is about 5-12 frames before you can shoot them again. In the later levels I realized I could time it so I shoot them when they stop walking, instead of having to continuously shoot them. They didn't effect the enemy spawn rate in 1-3 so I ignored them. As for finishing the level in the exact center, that would've been tricky. The crosshair moves when you move, so I would've had to move, then reposition the crosshair again for the last shot. I'm not sure if this would've saved time, but I don't think it would've made that big of a difference. I could've done it had I thought of it, but I didn't think of that until you brought it up, so maybe I'll try it if I decide to attempt a 2-player run. If I do decide to do a 2-player run, it won't be for a while.

I love this game, and would vote yes for the movie, but cant watch it at this time. I'm sure its worthy of a vote.

Since you release a wrong movie version last time, would you give us a link of savestates to go on seeing the movie?

Although you ran through this game really well in terms of speed, I found it difficult to remain entertained. The game itself is too repetitive. I'm going to have to vote 'meh' - good run, but the game itself was too repetitive.

Not being a lurker anymore, I voted yes. For me, the entertainment value held through till the end, though just barely.

I felt the same way, it kept my interest and was fun to watch. I'm not positive that it's the fastest completion simply because of the way grenades are rationed... but it looks very good to me as someone who hasn't spent hours analyzing the gameplay. :P

Doesn't look very optimal to me... not that I'm familiar with the game, but it looks like you pass over destroyable scenery when going between soldiers without shooting it sometimes. And use up your grenades in the levels when they could have been used to speed up the boss. You didn't use any grenades on the submarine boss, but perhaps they are ineffective. At the boss at 53200 it looked like you could have taken potshots at the other two parts when the one you're focusing on shields itself. The bosses would probably be very much smoother with two players (twice the firepower) unless the game also gives the bosses more health. I could imagine voting yes for such a movie, but probably not this.

This game was tougher than expected to TAS. It can be done entirely with Frame Advance which can get boring very quickly. The enemy spawn locations are fixed so you just have to time it so the crosshair is in the correct position on the correct frame. Then it's off to the next spawn point to kill the next enemy. The tricky part is moving the crosshair quickly, which can be done by holding B+left,right. That moves the crosshair very fast to the right side of the screen without firing or moving your character. However, it only works for the right side, so moving to the left also moves your character. When you stop moving the crosshair with the B+left, right method the crosshair actually drifts for a frame or two. This causes you to time the release of the button so the crosshair "lands" on the spot you want to hit.

Doesn't look very optimal to me... not that I'm familiar with the game, but it looks like you pass over destroyable scenery when going between soldiers without shooting it sometimes. And use up your grenades in the levels when they could have been used to speed up the boss. You didn't use any grenades on the submarine boss, but perhaps they are ineffective. At the boss at 53200 it looked like you could have taken potshots at the other two parts when the one you're focusing on shields itself.

I optimized the run the best I could (seeing as how I was going frame by frame the whole time) and it was very tough. I think the result was nice however. As for passing over the destroyable sceenery without shooting it, that was because there wasn't enough time. I had to go from one guy to the next and if I had taken a shot or two at a piece of scenery the guy I was going for could've spawned, taken a shot or moved. That was the case most of the time. I probably could've shot the scenery more inbetween enemy spawns but I decided to wait until I had cleared the field and had a moment to shoot the scenery. Even then the enemies spawned quickly and I had to hurry to keep from having too many on the field. It was easier to kill the enemies if I shot them as soon as they spawned that way it not only looks cool but allows me to see where the next guy comes and plan my strategy. As for the grenades being used up, some parts of the scenery and enemy units (tanks, jeeps, etc...) require too many hits before they go down. If I didn't use the grenade I would be spending way to much time taking down enemies and scenery and the run would be much longer. Yes, Grenades are ineffective agains the submarine boss. I try many times hitting him in many different spots and never reduced his health. As for the boss at 53200 I do take popshots at the others while the one I'm working on is shielded. It was tough when all 3 was out because I had to stay alive and hit the open tank thing. I hit the both at the same time once the first one went down I believe. The only thing left would be to do this 2 player, which would be hell on the recorder/player. It may make the game go faster to have one guy shot the scenery and the other shoot the enemies and it could also make it harder but I dunno about that. I figure a 1 player run through is good for now, we have one for Battletoads right? I'm sure a 2-player run will come along at some point, it may be from me, it may not I dunno. I do believe I've rambled on for long enough and I can't believe I'm able to write sentences that make sense while being soooooo sleepy. IMHO, I think this run has a good shot at being published. With that, I'm out... till tomorrow. *falls asleep at keyboard*

I gave it a yes vote. While there were some times that did drag on, mainly toward the end, for the most part it was amusing all the way through and such parts weren't too long. My only concern is the grenade usage. Perhaps you might have saved some time if you'd used less grenades sometimes?

At first I was convinced that this game would make a bad TAS. You proved that wrong :) This game can be entertaining and have a lot of potential strategy in terms of destroying screnery at optimal times, route planning with the moving of the cross hair and other factors. However, I am voting no: 1) This movie is clearly not optimized. In addition to the first level you admit to being sloppy, there are many instances where you pass up opportunities to shoot scenery while moving the crosshair accross the screen. A polished run could potentially look very incredible with a lot of obvious route planning. The situation seems similar to the menu handling of Randil's De Ja vu run. Take a look at that one as an incredible example of frame perfect planning of an onscreen cursor. Also consider planning your grenade usage, a lot of time could potentially be saved. 2) I thought the same thing as Truncated about the boss fight at 53200. There were other moments similar to this where I thought you could have done better planning. 3) I disagree with the goals. "Aims for fastest time" should be #1 and "destroys all scenery" should only be done when not interfering with #1. You should be shooting scenery because it saves time. Typically, goals that sound like "shoots/kills all x", "collects all x," etc. sound good in theory but are less interesting to watch. I know you are going to blow everything up in the level and it is just a matter of time when. This predicatbility makes it less interesting. Rather, if I knew that you destroy scenery to save time then every changes. I know you had to consider which scenery should be destroyed, when it should be done, and if you can destory any extra stuff without losing time. This will certainly beef up the entertainment value of the movie. 4)

The only thing left would be to do this 2 player, which would be hell on the recorder/player. It may make the game go faster to have one guy shot the scenery and the other shoot the enemies and it could also make it harder but I dunno about that. I figure a 1 player run through is good for now, we have one for Battletoads right? I'm sure a 2-player run will come along at some point, it may be from me, it may not I dunno.

A defeating attitude. A 2-player run should definately be done. This will increase the complexity of the onscreen action and make the the route planning more difficult and more interesting. The fact that it would be difficult to make is a GOOD thing and is what a GOOD TAS is all about. Your submission texts and comments suggest that it is hard to make this run optimal. This sentiment is apparent in your run and is affecting it negatively. Avoiding the difficult is a sure way of making an inferior TAS. Do the impossible and you will create something novel that others will enjoy watching. In conclusion, This run is a good test run but needs to be refined. I would estimate that over 30 sec could be shaved off another 1-player run and possibly a lot more out of a 2-player. Your words indicate that you do not plan to make another run of this game. That is sad. I know you are capable of making a great run for this game (You redid your amagon run with great results). My comments are intended to inspire & motivate you, not discourage. I hope that comes across. Good luck

I can't tell how optimal this is, but it's a fun watch. If it's obsoletable, then someday it will be bested. However, it's still entertaining and should be published, in my opinion. The end-of-level-dance is the greatest thing since WATER CAN DESTROY PULSEMAN!! (which I probably misquoted, and also just saw yesterday)

However, it's still entertaining and should be published, in my opinion.

Even if it is noticeably improvable? For me, entertainment suffers in the face of noticeable flaws. While this run was entertaining, I was dissappointing because I see so much more potential in this game. Also, if this run were published and then a 2-player run was made, would it obsolete this run?

Also, if this run were published and then a 2-player run was made, would it obsolete this run?

Maybe, maybe not. We have a 1 player and 2 player Battletoads run right? Can we do the same with this. Also, you keep saying I can shoot the scenery between killing enemies, but I don't see what you are talking about. I went back and watched the run again but I just don't see it. Can you be more specific? And another thing. Thanks for your words of wisdom adelikat. You're right, I was using the "it would be hell on the player" statement as an excuse not to attempt a 2 player run at this. I thought about it for a while and realized that it would be really impressive to see a 2 player run and I've decided to fiddle with it some.

I thought about it for a while and realized that it would be really impressive to see a 2 player run and I've decided to fiddle with it some.

Excellent! :D When I watch the run again, I will look more closely and tell you what I saw.

Even if it is noticeably improvable?

I don't know the game well enough to notice these improvements, I guess.