A game which people will be willing to watch for however long the resulting AVI will be.
I would recommend:
A game you like. You'll be spending a lot of time playing it.
A game you know a lot about. Any weird tricks? Bugs? Do you have a well written and extensive walkthrough handy?
And remember to use the forum as a resource. There are people here with the unique ability to spot errors that most people would never interpret as a mistake. We can give you suggestions and tips beyond what you can find in the FAQ.
some people say the nes games or the snes games beacause there short.
but why dont the pros tell me... b eacuse the game i had in mind was pokemon r gbut that some people tell me is too hard for a beginner (sorry if i havnt spelt beginner right)
-Insert Comment Here-
Why are pokemon so colourful?
(Seems someone has already beat me here, but what the hell) Take a look at the thread that lists all the famtasia runs and find something you may want to do, or find a game that has not been done yet (its up to you really), or try to obselete a current run here. Like some people have said, try a game you are familiar with and see what you can come up with but bare in mind that it may not get accepted if it is slower than a current published run or if it is extremely uninteresting.
You spelled 'beginner' correctly.
The games in the Pokemon series are difficult games. They're long (around 2 hours) and require a lot of luck manipulation and route planning. Have you read the submission information for the Pokemon Red run? The description should tell you just how much time and effort goes into making such an extensive game. I'm suggesting that starting there is going to be a huge shock to your system. Very difficult. A lot of planning.
That and we already have 2 pkmn runs from different generations, including red/blue to compete against. You have your work cut out for you.
ok so my favourite game that i can play on an emulator would be the pokemon games... mainly pokemon r/b
Well, if you go on the Pokémon line, make sure that you understand about everything that has been done to make the existing Pokémon runs happen.
Read the techniques, read the author's comments, etc.
Decide what your aim is, and create a plan to see how to accomplish that plan.
Do notice that you are competing against experienced players. You need to learn about luck manipulation, frame advance and stuff like that. It only comes through experience, so start experimenting.
EDIT: If you want to train yourself, getting used to the making of TAS movies, I would recommend (per DeHackEd's idea) that you play Super Mario Bros, on FCEU. Not to beat the existing movie, but to try to match it.
i enjoy compition and thank you guys for all the help... just after my mmorpg has got up and after i had a play round on it il start testing the luck manipulation and frame speed etc.
-Insert Comment Here-
Why are pokemon so colourful?
ok so my favourite game that i can play on an emulator would be the pokemon games... mainly pokemon r/b
Sure, but make sure you know the games very well (like the gaming mechanics and how certain actions result in certain outcomes). Usually RPGs (I'm relatively certain Poke'mon are RPGs since I do not care much for them) take more planning then say a platformer. Do some test runs and take a look at the current published runs of the other Poke'mon games to get an idea of what you may be in for. What the others have said may be right, Poke'mon games aren't for beginners.
I would also suggest starting with one of the Famtasia movies that needs to be upgraded.
Pros:
- Most of them are short and easy to play (but not necessarily to perfect).
- You have a time which you know you must beat. This wouldn't be the case with a new game.
- You won't have to worry about picking a game which isn't interesting. Upgrades almost always get published.
The topic which lists the older runs is here:
http://tasvideos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3365
From that list on Truncated's post, a couple notes:
1) Don't do SMB2 Princess only. It's somewhat of an unneeded run (I think it's supposed to be obsoleted by some other type of SMB2 run eventually).
2) A couple of these movies are not speed based, so making a run that is faster won't suffice. Examples:
Gradius
Tecmo Super Bowl
Track and Field
These are usually the toughest types of runs to improve (because entertainment is subjective while speed isn't).
Good luck!
<Swordless> Go hug a tree, you vegetarian (I bet you really are one)
There's no problem starting off with pokemon. Just be aware that if you aren't better than the existing runs, that will be pointed out to you a lot. Not to be mean, but to help you get better.
There's more to making TAS's than submitting them here :) Whatever you do, have fun!
<Swordless> Go hug a tree, you vegetarian (I bet you really are one)
:) thank you JQX ill try my best and if i dont beat the record i wont mind beacuse its the fun and the thrill of making the runs that i love.. its about the game not the compition
-Insert Comment Here-
Why are pokemon so colourful?
Surpise surprise! At least in videogames, of course it is.
The perception of speed can differ greatly depending on the minimum and maximum speed of the player character (and the difference between them — the dynamic range), the speed of the background, the continuity of the character's motion, level scrolling/room transitions, character's acceleration and inertia (and some other physics of the game engine), and even difference between him and characters from the other games which you could possibly measure against.
Some examples:
• discrete movement looks slower than the continuous, a complete stop always looks slower than a slowdown without stopping — if PC normally moves through the screen at a high rate (say, 20 tiles/sec) but makes some [very short] stops that make him build up his velocity again from scratch, it would look slower compared to the continuous run at 16—18 tiles/sec (even if it turns out to be longer in frame count);
• acceleration that lets PC build up his speed gradually from the min to the max rate may often be percieved faster than moving constantly at top speed (I also call it an autoscroller effect; most of the NES games suffer from such a low dynamic range);
• screen lag often looks slower than just a slower movement rate, even if the frame count is the same;
• the relative nature of speed may appear PC moving not at his maximum speed to look slower than a character from another game that actually moves slower.
And so on. Also, when we are in a hurry or just waiting for something, we often percieve certain things to take too long. On the other hand, some pleasant moments in one's life may appear too short. Not to mention "painfully slow" computers that once were "blazingly fast" and all the other kinds of situations. We measure speed in relation to time, but as long as the time itself is not really a time but rather our perception of it (and there is no "objective time" in the human world, either), the same will be applied to speed as well.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Maybe it's wrong of be to conceptualize the "speed" of the TAS by the number of frames in its movie...
Frames, seconds — doesn't matter much if we're talking about the time units. If not, then I've probably misunderstood what you're saying; could you rephrase?
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Time is relative. So if one computer played back a TAS on Earth, and the other one was on a rocket ship approaching the speed of light, even though it is the same TAS, one will finish playback before the other.
But the number of frames in both movies is the same. So to me, the are of equal length, regardless of the difference in velocities of the two computers, and the time to complete playback. A TAS with less frames is a faster movie even if it takes longer to play back than a TAS with more frames.
A TAS with less frames is a faster movie even if it takes longer to play back than a TAS with more frames.
In "objective reality", yes. But there is no such thing as objective reality — thus, the movie that appear faster, will be faster to me. Yes, we can measure frame count if we put aside the visual perception, and we can also compare movies by time units alone, but it doesn't always mean that a movie with less frames will look faster, closer to perfection, yet alone more entertaining.
Anyways, why did you start arguing with me over the fact that the perception of speed, much like the perception of time, was subjective? I thought that was rather obvious… (Moreover, you haven't even tried to disprove it. :| )
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
