Yes vote, of course.
Suggesting that the publication (because it will be published) has the subtitled run as an alternative encode. It really makes the tas much more entertaining.
Thanks for making this, Mr Axe.
Thanks. I thought a cancel vs accept was the reason, but couldn't get the math to add up. Having read your post linked from your post above, I realized I'd not thought about the palace 6 crystal level-up. Now it makes sense. Thanks again.
I rewatched this (still loved it), but could not figure out the following (which I am hoping Arc might answer if/when he visits this thread sometime):
When killing off Caroc (boss in Maze palace), you cancel the 1000 attack level-up, and not in favour of getting any other level-up before resetting when grabbing the boots.
Later, in the ocean palace, you get and take the 1000 attack level-up. So, why did you not take the level-up already in the Maze palace?
Thanks!
I voted meh, but I do think this deserves a publication in Moons. It is good complementing category, and a very impressive piece of work in that category.
Being so used to the any% run, my brain just didn't enjoy all the added walking. That being said, I very much appreciated:
- Purple room boss fight
- Controller input during weapon upgrades
- Time stopper usage
- Usage of stuck metal blades as a final blow
Thanks for making the run!
I did't read through the whole thread, but I saw at least a few posts that suggested this lacks entertainment, which is a viewpoint that surprises me. I think this is both awesome and an easy yes vote
Given its high wow-factor and short length, this TAS probably has the highest AEPF-value (average entertainment per frame) seen to this date.
For the record, I voted yes, because I was entertained. I believe this deserves to be in Moons. Ten years from now, we will remember this as one of the most important moments in TAS history. Thanks for your amazing efforts!
[3430] A2600 Dragster by Omnigamer in 00:08.49
That movie got a terrific audience response when it was submitted, much better than this submission. Also, in my opinion that was as well another of the most important moments in TAS history. But despite all that, it got mediocre entertaining ratings and had to be moved to Vault, some time after publication.
Don't misunderstand, I'm not saying that we should disregard submissions reception altogether. However, to me it doesn't make much sense to accept a submission for Moons for cases where we can tell in advance that it's going to get Vault ratings.
True, you are right of course. Being notable does not make the TAS qualify for Moons on its own.
For the record, I voted yes, because I was entertained.
I'm curious to know which part of the 0.78 seconds was the most entertaining.
The part at about 0.78 seconds in, where the game just gave up before it even started. Like it realized it's no use even attempting to challenge that superhuman player on the other end of the controller port. Quite the "wtf just happened?" the first time I watched it.
Of course, for the casual viewer, I fully understand that it might look like a SMB3 ending video with some weird messy graphics at the start of the video. But I'm not a casual viewer, and I very much liked what I saw.
For the record, I voted yes, because I was entertained. I believe this deserves to be in Moons. Ten years from now, we will remember this as one of the most important moments in TAS history. Thanks for your amazing efforts!
Stating my opinions on Marus questions:
Maru wrote:
What do we consider as gameplay?
Everything from power on is gameplay. A TAS necessarily starts at power on, and so for a TAS, gameplay for all games start at power on.
Maru wrote:
Does this TAS have any gameplay improvements compared to the published run?
Yes. Its arguably in the same category, and it is faster. Thus, it has gameplay improvements.
Maru wrote:
If this submission is accepted, should it obsolete the published run based on the fact that the published run was thoroughly outperformed in terms of time?
Yes, it should. This is also an ACE run, only a much faster one.
Maru wrote:
Is this type of game end glitch significantly different from the published game end glitch TAS to warrant the creation of a new category?
No, this is just a faster method to achieve ACE and reach the credits.
Maru wrote:
Since the ending is almost instant, do viewers see some similarity or resemblance to entering a password in-game to skip to the credits?
No, not at all.
---
My opinion is that this is a no-brainer. This is a faster completion of an existing branch of a game, and so it shall obsolete the existing publication in that branch.
Yes, it is less entertaining, but that is an unavoidable concequence of games being completed faster, and less content and awesomeness being shown. There is a sort of sweetspot where a faster TAS with better optimization and more glitches generally stop being more entertaining because the glitches and/or speed make the video less pleasing to watch. There are quite a few games that have already passed that sweetspot, where new TASes generally are less entertaining than their predecessors. This is such a case.
Voted meh for entertainment, but this should definately be published. I agree with your reasoning on Vault publication, and would not mind all three modes as separate movies.
Well done!
I specifically said that I asked a general question, and Kung Knut gave his answer: both. So he thought a TAS should be both like a superplay and a regular real-time speedrun. What else should I say?
No, I wasn't saying I need A tas to be both to enjoy it. I was saying I like both KINDS of tases.
I did enjoy both MrWint's AND your run. For this particular game and category, I happen to prefer the speedrun-like style a bit more. That is how I feel. One can be wrong about objective facts, but not about subjective opinions. And ths is my subjective opinion. And I am not wrong. Just as others that liked your run more are not wrong either. What IS wrong, though, is saying that people that don't share your own subjective opinion are wrong.
That said, I again state that I really like your run, and am very impressed with the work you put into it. Thank you for making it.
For the record, my vote was "meh".
Several aspects of your run sure as hell entertained me, but others didn't. I've come to realize during these past days what made me pick "meh" instead of "yes", thus the reason for this post.
Expectations.
In MrWint's submission, HappyLee went on and on about how much more entertaining his upcoming submission would be. And so he raised my expectations.
And then it came, was watched with really high expectations, but did not quite live up to them.
I've thought this thru now, and had it not been for the expectations that HappyLee himself created, I would actually have voted "yes".
(Yes, I did enjoy MrWint's run MORE than I enjoyed HappyLee's, but that does not mean I did not also enjoy HappyLee's run, and am very happy it exists.)
Do you like a TAS to be more like a superplay or a regular real-time speedrun?
Both. Depends on the game, the category, the run itself and my current mood. The fact that MrWint's TAS exists does not make your TAS any less entertaining in itself. It is still a piece of art.
HappyLee wrote:
why not watch Kosmic's real-time speedrun? It's fast enough, and it's live. Why watch a TAS?
I like watching both speedruns and TASes. I see no problem liking serveral things. Why must I choose?
I love TASes that look like something a human player COULD do if she had a perfect run (MrWint). I also love TASes that look like something a human could never do (HappyLee). In this particular case, I just happened to love the former more than the latter. But the former does not make me love the latter less!
The most entertaining aspect of this submission is how Happylee ranted in MrWint's submission that there are no more improvements to be found, just to be proven wrong by his own collaborator mere days later.
I do appreciate the hard work that went into this, and objectively it certainly is entertaining. But entertainment is subjective, and MrWint's run was more entertaining to me. Mario rushing to the flag pole instead of making "entertainment stops" LOOKS faster, while it is next to impossible to see that the time spent looking at the castle at the end is shorter without knowing beforehand.
Other than that, what Spikestuff said.
I find RBO more entertaining, because I prefer TASes that look possible for an insanely devoted speedrunner to execute. For me, all the zipping of this TAS takes away that aspect of the entertainment, since it looks like something said speedrunner could never master.
the point of a TAS is to be "super-human"
if there is a TAS that a human can execute then the game is either too simple or the TAS too poor
There are many ways in which a TAS can be entertaining. Looking like somerhing that a master speadrunner could do in a perfect run is one. Breaking the game completely is another. I love both. I just happen to love the former more.
Being a professional emulator architect (yes, that is my day-job), the most entertaining TAS aspect for me is a very detailed and technical submission text on an ACE run. Everyone is entitled to their own personal preference.[/i]
I find RBO more entertaining, because I prefer TASes that look possible for an insanely devoted speedrunner to execute. For me, all the zipping of this TAS takes away that aspect of the entertainment, since it looks like something said speedrunner could never master.
Thanks for making this, very impressive and entertaining.
Noob question: What was that hidden "empty" block in 6-1?
Also, huge yes for entertainment, but meh for category.
Very impressive Mr Sniq. Thanks for making this.
I agree with various others that the entertainment was on top up until Maridia. The glitchy graphics from thereon really take away the entertainment because one cannot see what is going on, and one thus will not be amazed by all the precise movement anymore since one cannot see just how precise it is.
Watching that other encode, however, yields entertainment all the way throughout the movie.
Therefore, your INPUT FILE has my entertaiment YES-vote. If published as any% (which it should be), I recommend having that other encode linked from the publication.
While I am fine with the outcome of the judgement (even if I hoped for it to be different), I am a bit disappointed with the judging itself. I would very much have liked to see the rules regarding versions (1.0, 1.1 etc) addressed and why PAL vs NTSC is different.
I thought I did. One is the original game, the other is a port, and PAL ports are usually bad. If the port is good (or better for some reason such as Lufia 2 E being way better than Lufia 2 U), then we can consider it. Accepting it once open for consideration is based on how unique it is. The rules for PAL vs. NTSC differ little from NES vs. SNES.
Kung Knut wrote:
I feel many people that stated their opinion in this thread never got them addressed in the judgement. Much of the debate was not over the game itself, but over the current rules.
I judge based on the current rules, not on hypotheticals. As I wrote in the judgment, if the rules change, it will be reassessed. I would have liked to see the run being accepted as a new game variant, but it does not appear to fit in with our current site framework. If you want to see a rule change, then it should be its own thread which has nothing to do with this run or any game or run in particular, and should be considered within the larger framework of game variants.
Thanks for addresing my concerns. I am now fine with the judging as well, meaning I accept and respect it, even though I still disagree with the outcome. That is good judging, right there.
While I am fine with the outcome of the judgement (even if I hoped for it to be different), I am a bit disappointed with the judging itself. I would very much have liked to see the rules regarding versions (1.0, 1.1 etc) addressed and why PAL vs NTSC is different.
I feel many people that stated their opinion in this thread never got them addressed in the judgement. Much of the debate was not over the game itself, but over the current rules.
If we do this, then all released versions of a game should be treated as its own "platform" too, meaning a game could have any% for NTSC 1.0U, NTSC 1.1U, NTSC 1.0J, PAL E, PAL A etc + all ports to other systems, including virtual console-ROMs where these are new builds.
That sounds overkill. Also, chances are, if this was allowed, it's likely popular games would have a community of people willing to do runs that obsolete runs in individual ports, while chances are a somewhat less popular game would have like the NTSC run be obsoleted, then have the other ports stray further behind each year.
The intention of my post was to emphasise just how overkill it would be to treat different version/ports as different "platforms". I realize now that that was not clearly implied.
Thus, I state explicitly that I think it is a bad idea to have different braches for different versions/ports.
My stance is (as I have stated earlier here) to have each branch for a game use the version/port that allows for the fastest time in that branch category, i.e. letting all PAL and NTSC versions compete with eachother within a branch, not complementing eachother in different branches.
We don't want all PAL versions to be acceptable alongside NTSC versions. If you consider different region versions different games globally, you can't limit the acceptability of PAL (or other regions). We want the movie base that looks as good as we can achieve, quality, not quantity. But we don't want to limit the quantity if quality is high enough.
To me, the only way to sanely change the PAL rule is to allow it on the case-by-case basis. Sometimes it will obsolete NTSC, sometimes it will be a new branch, sometimes it will be rejected. Various factors should be weighed in: internal gameplay differences, difference in the TAS content, entertainment value, technical value, audience opinion, maybe some more.
I think the only sane way to change the PAL rule is to just treat it as a normal platform. Some might be faster. Some might be slower. Some might be unique enough to warrant a publication alongside NTSC. Just like different consoles might be different publications, different regions might also prove the same. If you disagree, why?
If we do this, then all released versions of a game should be treated as its own "platform" too, meaning a game could have any% for NTSC 1.0U, NTSC 1.1U, NTSC 1.0J, PAL E, PAL A etc + all ports to other systems, including virtual console-ROMs where these are new builds.
Okay, I'm going to throw in some food for thought:
Whatever decision is made here will set a precedent that will be applied to other runs. So, what do we want to happen when a faster PAL version with different glitches is submitted for:
SMB warpless
SMB warpless walkathon
SMB maximum coins
?
Do they get all rejected because they're PAL? Do they all get new branches? Do they all obsolete the existing NTSC runs?
Ok, let's assume this submission here will be published as a separate category. Next, someone makes a "warpless" TAS on PAL that is just as optimized as the current NTSC TAS. That category is significantly longer and would be able to show off the PAL-exclusive tricks even more. For that reason, one could argue that the "warpless" PAL TAS should obsolete the regular PAL TAS, as it shows more content. You can compare that to how the first "warpless, walkathon" obsoleted the regular "walkathon".
Or, the currently published NTSC runs for those categories could be obsoleted with faster PAL runs, that abuse and showcase even more glitches, and that potentially results in the published runs of those categories being even more entertaining. Just saying.
"Use the fastest version of the game available as an official release. In the event that, excluding any potential text speed (from language change) differences, multiple versions are identical, NTSC is preferred but not required. Note that time gained or lost due to text speed (from language change) alone is not considered when comparing versions unless the majority of the run is text based and should not be factored in when choosing the 'fastest version' of a game."
I don't disagree with that at all. The rule is just as old as the runs it calls good for PAL. With the Moons policies, it looks outdated.
The bold-ified part above is very good because:
Whenever there are multiple versions of an NTSC rom for a game (like v1.0U, v1.1U, v1.0J etc), if a version has a version-specific glitch that allows for a time save, then that version is used precisely because it saves time. So why should a PAL version be treated different? Its just another version, and should be treated as such.
Let's stop talking about "bad ports" to PAL. If PAL versions are "bad ports", then what do we call different NTSC versions? "Good buggy first release" and "bad bug fix release"?