I know it is off topic, but I'd like to say I really like the luck manipulation in bisqwit's megaman movie. Each version has more and more optimized energy refill drops. I love seeing 3 energy refils fall down so quickly.

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.

Are you on crack? :)

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.

That's sort of what my post was getting at: if people are feeling dissatisfied with broken runs, maybe they can play a "takes no sloppy damage" and "no zipping" run. The goals are listed with each published movie because they vary between movies, which I consider a good thing. People should feel free to try different sorts of runs and state the goals, and we can see if the support exists for them. Although I'm generally just here for the speed, I've found the recent MKII and KI runs pretty refreshing and enjoyable. 4:45 AM, apologies in advance for typos and redundancy.

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.

Exactly!

That's sort of what my post was getting at: if people are feeling dissatisfied with broken runs, maybe they can play a "takes no sloppy damage"

Besides being a completely wrong name for a category ("sloppy damage" means that the damage is uninentional or unnecessary, which is hardly the case in any run) it's also very difficult to define: What is considered "sloppy-looking" and what isn't? If in my opinion some damage is not "sloppy-looking" but in your opinion it is, who is right? Goal strategies should be clear and unambiguous. "Takes no damage" is very unambiguous and easy to check. "Looks good" isn't.

and "no zipping" run.

I'm doubtful about the real value of such a version of the rockman run. Forbidding one glitch abuse while allowing countless others seems a bit artificial. Note that this is a bit different from a "no warps" run in that zipping doesn't really skip entire levels. The "no warps" category is good because you get to see the whole game. Of course one could argue that "no zipping" is the same: You get to see the whole game, but this is much more debatable. In many cases the "zipping" doesn't actually skip any screen nor actually deviates considerably from the intended route. A good example is the very first zipping in the rockman run: I see absolutely no problem with it. It looks cool.

The first category name was made intentionally ambiguous to gently poke fun. The second one was serious. If people are upset that speed-enhancing techniques are used to achieve the fastest time, that's the middle ground; defining what techniques you will or won't use. Technically it's already done with existing movies in the case of "takes no damage". It doesn't have an ambiguity problem. I see no value in it either by the way, but it seems like others may.

I have always wondered if "takes no damage" means "it's not necessary to take any damage in this game to complete it as fast as possible, and this run consequently takes no damage anywhere", or if it means "the game could be completed faster by taking damage, but this runs does not, and thus is a bit slower than the fastest possible". I have mostly assumed it is the former. One problem I can see with several of dubious categories (such as "no zipping", "takes no damage" (when taking damage is faster), "does not abuse programming errors", etc) is that the amount of videos to be published with all the combinations of these categories would be rather large. Perhaps someone would want a rockman video where there's no zipping, but taking damage is ok? Or perhaps no damage and no zipping, but other bug abusing is ok? How about a run with no bug abuse at all, with or without taking damage? The amount of possibilities start rapidly growing quite large (exponentially with the number of such categories, actually). So, which combination of categories would please most people? Some people might want to see a "does not abuses bugs" run, while others might just want to see a "no zipping" run, while others might not mind taking damage while others might want a no-damage run. If we come up with even more such categories, the amount of possibilities explodes. It would be prohibitive and useless to publish all possible kinds of movies for the same game. Currently only about 2-3 movies are published for certain games, and the differences are often quite extreme (such as the ones caused by "no warps"). If the difference between two movies is subtle (such as "takes no damage", which would perhaps make a difference of just a few seconds) then it starts rapidly becoming pointless to publish both movies.

>I have mostly assumed it is the former. It has been both. It is the former especially in cases where taking damage would save very little time, or needs to be taken in very few places.