A run of rockman1 which does not abuse glitches and goes through the intended route would be *boring*, completely opposite of "fun".

I disagree. I liked Morimoto's original Rockman video (that abused next to none glitches) because it employed interesting choices regarding the weapon selections. It was colourful, not monotonous. In that aspect, my video loses to it. Mine is monotonous in the sense of regular playing strategies. But, my video contributes a huge number of esoteric playing techniques, which I think greatly compensates for the aforementioned fact. Also, I think what NecroVMX's "technical rating" became is called "cross contamination", which the rating form warns against. I.e. you give a low (or high) rating in one category, and it makes you give a similarly biased rating in the other category as well, even though the categories are distinct.

admirable run

Love you!

I just happened to really dislike their Mega Man 1 run.

Love you more!

least you got a sense of humor about it :P if it's any consolation, I thought your mega man 4 run kicked ass

but mm4 had glitches.

a lot of runs i like have glitches. I never said "any run that ever uses glitches sucks" I said that when the game is broken to the point where it's barely recognizable, that's boring to watch and not at all impressive to me.

But I recognize the Magnet Beam and how you use that! And I recognize what happens when you push Select a whole bunch! So it works for me.

This run is crappy and boring no matter how much you say otherwise.

It's amusing how you talk like you were stating an universal Truth and I was a lone stubborn person who is blind and just can't see this Truth. You don't say "in my opinion this run is boring and crappy and nothing you say will convince me otherwise". Instead you state it like a self-evident universally-known truth which is independent of what I say. Another amusing thing is that you talk in general in this thread as if there was nothing more than zipping and more zipping in the whole movie, and absolutely no "regular play" (in a sense). This is a rather strange attitude when one actually watches the video. The first zipping happens at 1:11 in the video. Before that it's "regular playing". Overall, there's quite little zipping in the first level. The amount of zipping increases somewhat in subsequent levels, but not nearly as much as being just zipping and nothing more. I would say that the amount of regular playing is considerably larger than zipping. I really don't understand what you are complaining about. The problem with artifically not using zipping is that, once you know that a certain long portion of the level can be zipped through in less than a second, but instead several tens of seconds are used to play it in a regular way, it becomes, in my opinion, boring. The goal of the run is also lost. What is the goal? Is the goal to show a walkthrough of the game? There are places where zipping skips boring parts, and I'm sure that even you cannot deny that (unless you are really stubborn). For example the long straight corridors before some of the bosses. Watching the player just run through the corridor at a slow pace would be boring when one knows that it can be zipped through, right into the real action (ie. the boss fight).

I'd rather watch a 25 minute run of the game being completely perfected

You fail to define what "perfected" means. In the context of TASing a perfect run is one which uses the least amount of frames to complete the game. If a run is slower then it's not perfect. Why would a run which does not use a glitch be "perfect"? How do you define perfection in that case? It is "perfect" doing what? At least not completing the game as fast as possible. If not that, then what?

than a 15 minute run of someone zipping through walls.

I haven't counted, but there's probably less than 2 minutes of zipping, perhaps even less than 1 minute. The rest is "regular playing". I really don't understand what you are complaining about.

I am not going to support runs like this, I'm going to vote no for runs like this, and when they get published, I am going to give them a very low entertainment rating.

Then perhaps this is the wrong place for you? If you want to watch perfect "regular" plays, SDA sounds like a much better place. Oh, wait, even the SDA speedruns often abuse glitches in games to skip big parts of levels. Oops, it seems that it isn't for you either... I just don't understand what is it that you want.

I dont care how "unexpected" it is, it looks like a debug cheat, not gameplay.

What the heck is a "debug cheat"? It doesn't look to me like any kind of cheat at all. It just looks like abusing a game glitch.

You ask who am I to say what isn't perfect, artistic or flawless, and I counter by asking you who are you to say what is?

I didn't make any claim about what is and isn't "perfect, artistic or flawless". You did. And you did with a rather presumptuous tone, like you knew better than anyone else what is "perfection" and "art".

If you don't agree with my assessment of this run, that's fine. But the attitude is unwarranted, unwanted and unwelcome.

You should look into your own text and think about the attitude problem that it reflects. You attacked the submission with harsh words, almost insulting words, and you belittled it. Your text feels presumptuous and insulting, and it only begs for the same kind of response.

But if attitude is the way you want to play it, that's fine with me, and I'll inform you that if you don't like what comes out of my mouth, then check out what comes out of the other end.

To be honest, it's difficult to make any distinction between the two.

I rated it 0/5

The rating system is not there to express protests and resentment. Especially the technical score is something intended to be given in as a neutral way as possible. However, you have completely ignored the goal and reason why the rating system exists and used it as a way to protest, to express your disgust, your disagreement with everyone else. Instead of understanding what the technical perfection score means, you give it your own twisted meaning and thus get an excuse to contaminate it with your opinion on the entertainment value of the video. That's certainly not why the rating system exists. By doing this kind of "protest" you are just showing your stupidity.

tl;dr

o rly?

I disagree. I liked Morimoto's original Rockman video (that abused next to none glitches) because it employed interesting choices regarding the weapon selections. It was colourful, not monotonous. In that aspect, my video loses to it. Mine is monotonous in the sense of regular playing strategies.

The problem I see is that once you *know* that a trick can be used to complete some part faster, a run not doing so becomes (in my opinion) exasperating and boring (especially at some parts, such as the long corridors before some of the bosses). I am actually not opposed to the idea of having a second version of this TAS under a different category, such as "does not abuse programming errors" which could coexist with this main version. However, in the past such runs have not been seen as necessary or interesting. The voters are the ones who would decide, in the end. Of course the main problem with this is deciding what is considered a "programming error" and what isn't, and what is the rule by which something can be used while something else can't. (One problem is also that if such a submission *does* use something which is considered a programming error, would it then be accepted or not? If it would, that imposes a big controversy: Which bugs are allowed and which aren't and why?)

But, my video contributes a huge number of esoteric playing techniques, which I think greatly compensates for the aforementioned fact.

The virtue of this run is that it's quite unique. Well, not unique per se, but rare. There are only very few games which have so many exploitable and varied glitches. Abusing all these glitches in a creative way to squeeze off even the last frame is the literal embodyment of what "superplay" is. It's the spirit of what Morpheus said (quoted in the common tricks page). There are, in my opinion, too few of such runs here (because only very few games have such glitches), and it's delighting to have at least some.

NecroVMX, I feel similarly about %100 no damage as you do about heavily glitched runs (there are exceptions). I feel they are unecessary, imperfect, and boring. Yet when I watch one, I am still entertained somewhat. It doesn't make the run completely ruined. I might give it a rating of 5 in entertainment but certainly not 1. If it is a good TAS or a good TASable game then I won't be completely disgusted by it. I guess I am saying that even if I don't agree with the goals of a run, I can still find some entertainment value.

i prefer no damage runs, excepting in the case where it looks impressive to take damage and skip a good chunk of games. (example: castlevania games) it all really depends on the game of course

Each run clearly states it goals. If the first goal of the run is "aims for fastest time", then it's pretty silly to give this run less than an 8 or so for technical merit unless you can spot time improvements. If you can, you may have even done somebody a service by awarding that rating. If the first goal was "be as entertaining as possible" this run might rate lower technically. If the primary goal was "aims for highest score", "defeat all bosses", "do not use zipping" or "take minimum damage" it wouldn't score very high at all. There shouldn't be any pressure to rate things to a certain standard, but people should be reminded to keep the run's goals in mind when voting or rating.

I think that "I prefer no damage runs" is a somewhat odd statement. I do understand it, but it just sounds like the alternative is that the runner gets damage freely and arbitrarily (iow the runner doesn't care if he gets damage or not), making it look like sloppy play. However, usually damage is taken only if it saves time. If it doesn't save time, the common agreement is that it should not be taken. The most common situation in most runs taking damage is that there are about 100 enemies to pass, and in about 10-20 of them damage is used to do so faster. This just raises the question: Why does it make such a big difference whether the runner dodges (in a perfect way) 80 or 100 enemies? During the run we get to see several dozens of examples of perfect dodging. Why 20 more would make a difference? We already know that they can be dodged if the player really wants to. Why taking damage has to be seen as sloppy play (even when knowing it's completely intentional and carefully planned and executed)? Why can't we have a more positive view of the situation and think about it as a cool strategy to save time? It's not like the runner would get damage from every single enemy, or even arbitrarily. Personally I think it demonstrates a much more admirable strategy to see where the runner is taking the damage to save time and where he isn't (eg. because he can't, lest he die). In a way, a "takes no damage" when damage could save time feels like a lazy way of making the run: The runner doesn't have to make any planning nor decisions about when to take damage and when not to. In other words, planning the damages is more laborious and difficult and requires more work to implement, while a no-damage run would be much easier and thus not as admirable. It's a lazy way of doing the run because one important planning element is removed, lessening the amount of work.

I think taking damage just looks ugly. I don't care if the runner saves a second by running straight at an enemy, I can't see that from the run. If he however kills the enemy or dodges it in a very fast way it does look impressive. Running at an enemy is easy and I can do that in normal play. I don't care about the number of frames it takes the runner to get from beginning to end, I care about how it looks. Taking damage just always looks sloppy to me, even if I know it's faster than killing or dodging the enemy. It's another thing if taking damage results in a clever shortcut like in the aformentioned Castlevania games. I'm very sad that taking damage became the preferred way of doing things in TASes. Personally I like Morimoto's movie more than any of these glitched movies (well, it was pretty cool when we saw the zipping glitches for the first time).

Kyrsimys: I see where you are comming from, but now a days, people always look for the fastest way to beat the game. Its not all about style anymore(in general), its about what is fastest. I agree also, that I really did enjoy Morimoto's runs of rockman and rockman2, but even now in speedruns, the user will take a hit. Take my speedrun of rockman(which is obsoleted), I take hits is various places to actually save time.

I know that's how it is. It still doesn't mean I like it.

I'm very sad that taking damage became the preferred way of doing things in TASes.

What do you mean "became"? The main goal of TASes has *always* been to complete the game as fast as possible using whichever means. I have been following this from the very beginning, from the very first TAS that Bisqwit published. His (and basically everyone's) concept was "complete as fast as possible by any means" from the very beginning. I even vividly remember when I was making my first tries at Rygar that Bisqwit told me something along the lines of "try to utilize those HPs by taking damage for speed". This was like during the first year since this site was first created or so. It was not after several *years* later when someone got confused with the statement "we are not doing this to compete with everyone, we are doing this just for entertainment" (IOW, we are not trying to compete with regular speedruns for world records or anything like that) and somehow understood it as "the goal of a TAS is not speed but making an entertaining movie" (IOW a machinima video), after which all the fuss started. Luckily the fuss and confusion kept itself in the forum only. The movies themselves were (and are) still judged and published based on speed, which is what TASing is all about. If what you want is a machinima video, then you can try youtube or whatever.

I don't remember it like that. I distinctively remember that getting hit was not a common practice back when the site was young. It was only popularized later (but still earlyon) by Bisqwit.

Btw, I said it earlier, but let me repeat: I'm not at all opposed to the idea of a "takes no damage" version of any movie. If someone really wants to submit such a movie, then by all means. I won't protest that. I'm just not sure if it will get enough yes votes to be published. Perhaps it will.

Warp: My intentions for my holy diver movie(suggested also by foda) was to have a "no damage taken" run beccause the game is so hard. It is impossible to take no hits in that game normally playing, let alone just plain beating the game. Also, I agree with warp. I wouldn't protest either the "takes no hit" runs, but its not up to just a couple people to decide on the run being published or not(as warp stated).

GOOD examples of taking damage: Using damage to boost you onto a higher platform, skipping large portions of level (castlevania) Running through enemies in a game that it doens't look terrible in and carefully managing life in a way that's exciting (castlevania: cotm) Purposely damaging yourself to be able to use a midair skill again (mega man x2, x3) Damage for the invincibility period to navigate damage areas (any mega man game except for mm1) Using damage to boost yourself accross the screen (Super Metroid! looks great in that run!) Taking damage to get your life low for a power up, or because you need to lose a fight BAD examples Smashing into an enemy becuase it's 1 frame faster than dodging it, even though it makes your character look retarded Taking damage for no loss or gain, just for the hell of it So as you can see there is a LOT to be said for taking damage in runs. However the fact remains that it looked a LOT better when morimoto was not taking any damage than "oh look, he saved 2 frames by jumping into that enemy" Unless you're saving a huge amount of time, or doing something that looks cool, then wtf. don't do it.

Retarded... or DARING?

Some guys like women. Some guys like men. Some guys like men and crystal meth but say they like women and publicly decry liking men and crystal meth. Some guys like little children and often go to jail unless they are rich and/or famous and/or religious leaders.

Retarded... or DARING?

definately retarded.

Smashing into an enemy becuase it's 1 frame faster than dodging it, even though it makes your character look retarded

The thing that makes this difficult is judging how many frames need to be saved to make it worth looking worse. It's up to the individual, so to avoid that debate, it's usually always done when time is saved, or never done, depending on the goals of the run. If it was done only sometimes, it would be heavily questioned from both sides.