Note: A emulator with reset record capabilities is necessary to have when watching this run
Details of the run
Any% item collection
Low% item collection
No bosses fought
Aims for lowest realtime
Manipulates luck
Takes damage to save time
Abuses programming errors
Uses death as a shortcut
Is a rape
About the run
This is a completely new run which aims for the absolutely lowest realtime, aims to fight no bosses and it also finishes with the absolutely lowest possible number of items, 6. The run in general has been made possible by Kejardon, who discovered both the early tourian break in (though not as early as in this run) and the Motherbrain skip. You can read about his discovery in http://forum.metroid2002.com/index.php/topic,6016.0.html this thread, he has a big explanation on page 2, so go and read it. Entering Tourian without the speedbooster nor enough ammo for a CF was discovered by hero of the day, the mockball has a very big "boomerang" effect when turning around and then immediately turning back again which made him think that it was possible to use in order to get Samus lodged far enough into the door for the skip to work, and it evidently did. Note that any weird actions before entering a door, or entering a door in a seemingly suboptimal way is done to reduce door lag.
The run is completed in 00:12:35 ingame and in 22:01 in realtime (79271 frames). And you might want to fast forward the X-ray climbing when going in to tourian, it is about 3,5-4 minutes long.
Suggested Screenshot: 62065
Thanks to
Kejardon for discovering the glitches to make the run possible.
gstick for a making a testrun (10%) which was used as a reference in tourian.
And the rest. moozooh, Tonski, catnap222 Saturn, Kriole, Taco, JXQ, evilchen, namespoofer, Terimakasih, Michael Flatley, Frenom and possibly someone else I forgot.
Bisqwit: Creating AVI. Delaying the acception for the benefit of those who dislike quick publications.
So is that the reason why you don't work on your low% despite sitting around here every day doing nothing for years?
No. The previous time I explained my reasons was the previous time, go find it yourself if you want.
If you mean the old "being too busy" excuses you mentioned, then yeah, no need to reapeat them. Just something to remember for you: There are weekends where one should have enough time to do at least a bit of progress, if it's really not possible during the week (which is again highly doubtful judging by your post-activity here alone).
Also, I assume most TASer here are busy more or less, (I'm ~10 hours at work every day), but that doesn't stop us from doing progress, even if slowly. You on the other hand just sit around here confusing other people by making them think you work on that 14% for years, while in fact doing nothing at all. How about just making a clear decision: either working on that run, or leaving it alone, so that other TASer can pick it up without worrying about "stealing" the project from you?
(although as it seems it will happen someday anyway, just like it did with this NBMB run you also "worked" on before)
hero of the day wrote:
If it helps to alleviate any fear of "too many super metroid runs!", it should be known that Taco and Kriole are now working on a new any% run. This new run should theoretically obsolete both my run and Cpadolf's run. They will be aiming for real time, but at the same time will also manage to tie the in-game run's in-game time. Two movies obsolete for the price of one.
Yeah, good point, though one should keep in mind that the in-game oriented run is still a more entertaining one to watch overall, due to the additional items, and therefore higher speed/pace and more variety. The future of this run, once the realtime one gets a 0:23 as well, will probably depend on how much value we put on that entertainment stuff in it.
PS:
It's really surprising how many people gave this NBMB run a sub-9 technical rating, despite that it's the by far most optimized Super Metroid TAS we have here, with all of the new techs and long-time worked out optimizations included. Maybe it's not so obvious for the uninvolved TASer of this game, but if you ask any of the more experienced SM-TASer, they will for sure confirm that this is without a doubt a extremely well optimized run in both, speed and luck manipulation. Just something I thought I should note.
It's really surprising how many people gave this NBMB run a sub-9 technical rating, despite that it's the by far most optimized Super Metroid TAS we have here
Its amazing how many runs on the site have disproportionaly high technical ratings. Maybe it's not so obvious for the uninvolved TASer of a particular game. I don't see why an 8 is an unfair rating in this case.
"glitchless" sounds less arbitrary then what would be needed to make the current runs qualify. The problem is you would need to define a list of allowable glitches, and a list of banned ones.
The problem with "glitchedness" is that it's already hard to define what glitch is. Is data manipulation a glitch? Is abusing collision detection algorithms' "defense mechanism" (zipping, ejecting) a glitch? What about abusing the character's motion physics to produce unlikely in-game situations? On the contrary, "going out-of-bounds" has a rather clear definition: colliding with the terrain in a way that makes you go through it. It should be quite enough.
Satoryu wrote:
it's not an any% by definition, as it collects the lowest possible amount of items.
Actually, it's rather the other way around: collecting the lowest amount of items is a consequence of beating the game as fast as possible, because neither of them except these six save time. As you said earlier, the existence of low% as a category only makes sense if it's not the same as any%.
Saturn wrote:
It's really surprising how many people gave this NBMB run a sub-9 technical rating, despite that it's the by far most optimized Super Metroid TAS we have here, with all of the new techs and long-time worked out optimizations included.
What is most surprising, of course, is that you give 9 in technical rating to all Super Metroid runs you see. Let's name them: any%v1, any%v2, ingame any%, 100%v1, 100%v2, NBMB.
Does this mean they have all been made on the same technical level, consciously or not? Or does this mean anything else, particularly the fact that you've always tried to hide the majority of improvements that you knew full well since long time ago, and praised the authors for their always "most optimized" runs without pointing out how improvable they actually were until it was too late?
I think there is a word for this, hmm… let me remember it… starts with "hypo" and ends with "crisy". I think this word is the exact reason I don't really want to have any further communication with you, ever. Don't even waste mine and others' time.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
it's not an any% by definition, as it collects the lowest possible amount of items.
Actually, it's rather the other way around: collecting the lowest amount of items is a consequence of beating the game as fast as possible, because neither of them except these six save time. As you said earlier, the existence of low% as a category only makes sense if it's not the same as any%.
that doesn't mean the run should be called any%. from my understanding of how percentage works, any% means that the amount of completion (in this case items collected) is somewhere between 0 (or whatever the minimum is) and 100. the extremities are not included in that number, as noted by the seperate categories. unless i'm incorrect that 6 is the lowest percent attainable, this run would be a low% and not an any%.
and actually, i think you are backwards with the last sentence. an any% can only exist if it is faster than a low% or a 100%. if one of those is the fastest method of completing the game, then any% just doesn't exist.
any% is not always synonymous with fastest time.
Two major questions:
1. Don't I remember Kej saying somewhere that the room needed to activate the glitch is shown in the opening credit/screen roll so the extra save isn't needed? Is this faster?
2. Would it be faster to simply bomb jump your way up through the empty void of 15 screens? Or is X-Ray climbing actually faster?
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day,
Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.
1. Yes, No
2. X-ray scope is used to pass through solid blocks. As soon as the blocks are cleared, bomb jumping is used.
1. Ok
2. Actually, in the published movie he did not bomb jump for nearly as long as your movie. However, he has a different X position from your movie. Are there substantially more solid blocks in the way at that X position than the one you took using the CF?
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day,
Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.
The only reason for being further in to the wall is that you can skip doing the CF, there is a bump that hinders you from X-ray climbing all the way but at X<32 you pass by it. We climb just as many screens as he did, the difference is that when he reaches the point where you can move around he immediately starts bombjumping the whole 3 screens of distance that is left, while we on the other hand walljump up a wall located about 110-115 pixels to the left of the elevator trigger for over 2 screens. The reason he did not use this (besides the fact that he didn't really aim for fastest speed) is that because of the large gap between the wall and the elevator trigger you are required to do some extremely hard diagonal bombjumps to reach it.
The reason for it being slower to use the ingame demo to load up the green brinstar room is that it is one of the later demos, it takes about 3 minutes to reach (it would be 7-10 seconds faster ingame though).
any% means that the amount of completion (in this case items collected) is somewhere between 0 (or whatever the minimum is) and 100.
To me, the word "any" implies "any" amount of completion, including 0 and 100. On this site, I believe it means that the game is completed as quickly as possible without restriction on the percent completed, and that there is another run that has a percentage completion goal of low% and/or 100% which is longer.
Satoryu wrote:
any% is not always synonymous with fastest time.
Really? Do you have an example in mind? Why would you choose to do an arbitrary % completion that was longer than low% or 100%?
I don't mean to sound condescending; I'm genuinely curious if I have the wrong idea about this terminology.
We climb just as many screens as he did, the difference is that when he reaches the point where you can move around he immediately starts bombjumping the whole 3 screens of distance that is left, while we on the other hand walljump up a wall located about 110-115 pixels to the left of the elevator trigger for over 2 screens.
Ok, I must have misremembered how long he ibjed. I thought he went for like 10 screens, but I was mistaken
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day,
Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.
Really? Do you have an example in mind? Why would you choose to do an arbitrary % completion that was longer than low% or 100%?
the Mega Man X1 TAS is low%.
the Mega Man X2 TAS is 100%.
that was what i was saying; when a low% or a 100% is faster, there's no reason for an any% to exist. that doesn't apply to this run, though, as it's a rape/severely glitched/skips all bosses/whatever you want to call it.
i don't believe any% is an actual goal for runs here. if a run isn't low% or 100%, it's just marked as "aims for fastest time." any% is only listed in the run title akaik, and that's only when low% and/or 100% runs already exists.
fuck, this is getting confusing...
That doesn't really answer my question: I was looking for an any% run that was not faster than a low% or 100% run. Both of those runs are as fast as possible regardless of completion percentage.
But, I'm not entirely sure that arguing on this point is productive, or that we actually disagree on anything :) Probably just a difference of semantics.
By the way, I still say keep the current non-glitched low% along with them all. Hey, if we could have something like this for the sake of not polluting the SNES listing with 5 SM movies, all the better.
more entertaining than Total Recall, haha, I learned that lesson already. =P
NES Metroid and SNES Metroid 3 (SM) have became one of the most popular TAS'es I have seen. Due to certain goals set and shortcuts that blew away another game player's mind are the two reasons I can't argue too much about what gets obsoleted and what stays in the TAS video archives, among these two games.
I'm fairly certain this is the clarification of what each type of completion is.
An any% run beats the game as fast as possible.
A low% run aims for least items, especially in the case of Super Metroid where this percentage is definable and documented in game. A low% run can only exist if it takes longer than the any% run.
A 100% run aims to get all items, again Super Metroid states this percentage in game and it is a clearly definable category. A 100% run must take longer than an any% run to exist.
As I asked a few pages ago and moozooh responded. 6% appears to be the lowest percentage and fastest completion possible. Therefore utilizing this glitch, an any% run exists. The low% run specification is irrelevant because the game happens to be beaten as fast as possible and collects the least amount of items.
This run can be labeled "any%, glitched. (Going out of bounds was the criteria moozooh suggested to define this.)
As far as I was clear, the following runs could all feasibly exist. The nostalgia of some of these categories may or may not warrant keeping them around.
any%
any% (in-game timer)
any% (non-glitched)
any% (in-game timer)(non-glitched)
low% (non-glitched)
100% (non-glitched by nature)
A more subtle tone
Exactly, from watching the min% (and ingame for that matter) it would be hard to know what the catagory is other than guessing its a any%. On the other hand this and the 100% run have a very clear goal distinction.
An any% run beats the game as fast as possible.
...
The low% run specification is irrelevant because the game happens to be beaten as fast as possible and collects the least amount of items.[.quote]
the exact opposite of what i've said. my difference in logic must be because i think as a speedrunner, not a TASer. perhaps SDA just has a different definition here? or does no one listen to the n00b? (first time poster, long time lurker. very long time.)
i guess what i've wanted to say is that low% should supercede any% when it comes to categorization because the latter is too general a definition. i don't agree with any% encompassing all percents. this movie has the lowest percent, and should be called a low%.
Kirkq wrote:
A 100% run must take longer than an any% run to exist.
Joined: 11/18/2006
Posts: 2426
Location: Back where I belong
Say a game has 10 items, and a very hard boss that takes a very long time to beat normally. When those 10 items are all collected, the boss takes no time at all to defeat.
If those 10 items are spaced within a short distance from each other, it would be faster to collect them all and beat the boss fast, rather than avoid taking one or two items because it's a couple steps out of the way, and having a very long boss fight. This would be a case where a 100% run is shorter than an any % run. A similar, real life example is the recent pokemon publication. It collected 100% (technically more, but for the sake of arguement, we'll call it 100%) of items in a faster time than it would have taken for someone to beat the game without collecting 100% of the items.
A low% run works on a similar, but opposite idea. If there is a variety of options for items to take, and you want to see how little of those items you can collect and still beat the game, for most games it would take longer for you to do than just beating it as fast as possible (any%), because you'd have to go out of your way to pick and choose the best items that would fit your needs. This picking and choosing would likely lead to time lost, thus the low% would be longer than an any%.
This run breaks the rules because it doesn't have to sacrifice any time to pick and choose items, and it accomplishes two feats. It gets a lower amount of items than the previous any% runs, and does it faster. Therefore it is the fastest any% run. The fact that it collects less items than the previous movies doesn't matter, it just shows that those movies were "inefficient" in their route.
However, if you throw the "glitched" label in with all this, it becomes confusing.
I hope this is what you're trying to say, Satoryu.
pretty much, yeah.
aside from all that, i just wanted to get my original point across that i don't agree with this run being labeled as an any%. "low%, glitched" is the designation i would've chose.
pretty much, yeah.
aside from all that, i just wanted to get my original point across that i don't agree with this run being labeled as an any%. "low%, glitched" is the designation i would've chose.
The Link's Awakening DX TAS on the workbench is suffering the same kind of problems.
In all honesty, I cannot see how
- using an item or technique to glitch though walls and areas
- using save/quit warping
- skipping every boss, including the last one
...can possibly be considered anything but a "glitched" run.
The fact this argument is still raging on is just boggling my mind.
A 100% run must take longer than an any% run to exist.
Sorry, you are correct. I meant "for both to exist"
In the case of MMX2 an any% run is a 100% run. The label is simply "fastest run" and no other categories exist. The aim is to beat the game as fast as possible, collecting all items is a side effect.
As with this Super Metroid run, collecting as few items as possible is again a side-effect of beating the game as fast as possible, thus low% is worth noting, but I don't believe it is actually the category of the run.
I personally think it's any% (glitched) with low% as a side effect.
Is this set in stone by the site already and we're all speculating, or is it something that we actually need to find a solution to?
In the interest of not posting too much, I'll add here that I agree with alden's post below this.
Xkeeper wrote:
The fact this argument is still raging on is just boggling my mind.
This seems like one of the quieter and more civil debates going on at the moment.
To me, designating "low%" implies that there is another run that is shorter but has a higher completion percentage. Designating any% implies that there is a low% or 100% run that is slower. The latter is the case here, so while this would qualify for both any and low%, the least confusing term to me would be any% (+glitched, of course).
The problem with labelling a run as "glitched" is that then you have runners building entire speedruns with a new glitch not totally sure if it'll fit into the criteria since it could fall under a non-glitch, glitched, any%, low%, etc etc etc.
When you start finding more and more ways to use the X-Ray Scope's door trick it's not that complex - you label that single glitch. When someone discovers a brand new glitch that they have to categorize it could mean the difference between acceptance and obsoletion, acceptance and a new category, or rejection. This is what the legal courts call 'precedence' and it can be a real headache when it comes to bite you in the ass later.
The idea of making "All bosses required to enter Tourian complete/skipped" a category is a good idea, but then you run into the issue of "What if someone uses the glitch to get more Super Missiles and beats the boss later?" or something.
Eh, I dunno. I think we should call this a "Glitched" run and call the rest of the runs as we see them. Sure it'd be a debate every time some new trick is discovered but it's better than arguing about what to call THIS run.
Joined: 11/20/2004
Posts: 236
Location: United States
Incidently... "THE HIDDEN WORLDS" TRICK LIVES ON MWAHAHAHAH!!
Okay, so anyway, I enjoyed this run and found the X-Ray Scope trick to be quite interesting! I'm not sure if anyone's going to find a way to squeeze MORE time out of this trick, but I'm sure we'll see people try! And I look forward to it.
As for the issue of calling it a "glitched" run, it is indeed glitched because...well... Have you SEEN the video? The graphics screw up hugely! Plus, there's a number of thinks you're totally not supposed to do, such as hop OVER Mother Brain's chamber or destroy the final walls and whatnot with the default weapon. I guess basically, you could call ANY run where you do something you can't do without tool-assistence "glitched"... Hm... I can see where the debate lies now. "What IS 'glitched'?"
Incidently... "THE HIDDEN WORLDS" TRICK LIVES ON MWAHAHAHAH!!
As for the issue of calling it a "glitched" run, it is indeed glitched because...well... Have you SEEN the video? The graphics screw up hugely! Plus, there's a number of thinks you're totally not supposed to do, such as hop OVER Mother Brain's chamber or destroy the final walls and whatnot with the default weapon. I guess basically, you could call ANY run where you do something you can't do without tool-assistence "glitched"... Hm... I can see where the debate lies now. "What IS 'glitched'?"
the problem is that every single currently published SM run is technically glitched. The mockball is based on a glitch, the shoulder pumping is, all the runs are full of glitches.
So to categorize this run here into its own category, we would have to define varying categories of glitches. Or varying severity.
Personally, I'm very indifferent. For one, the currently published runs are clearly *different* from this run, but all of them are "glitched", so from a logical and technical standpoint, this one should be replacing the older (non-100%) ones.
So my feeling is to keep the run separate, but my rationality demands otherwise. *sigh*
Philip
