I used the European versionen of the game. No switches to NTSC this time. So I maybe got this one published, as the first European version as a TAS movie.
I make the flagpole glitch at every stage. The easiest way to make the flagpole trick is that, jump so close as possible the flagpole then hold down left and right and A at the same time, then press B to slide slowley into the flagpole. I make some mistakes at WORLD 4-2.And I tried to make this video Entertaining as mutch as possible...
Laacktoer? Laecktoer? MrSweed? DMTM?
Try to decide?
submitter wrote:
I make some mistakes at WORLD 4-2.
Anything why this shouldn't be speedily rejected?
I don't think we need both a NTSC and PAL version of this game published, unless there's some radical difference.
Though I have to admit, seeing the familiar version of the game brings some good mood to me.
Laacktoer? Laecktoer? MrSweed? DMTM?
Try to decide?
LOL!
No anyway, because it's slower and the other motivations.
<Neclea>Gavin Ward <Sprint>WHAT? WHERE?
<oldskoolgamer101>What a stupid name!
oldskoolgamer101 was kicked from # soniccenter by Sprint [ says you , kimpy ]
First, you're making a run of a game that's already been done to assumed (key word) perfection, albeit in a different region, and with no reason for doing so. Region change is only permitted if something significant to the movie can be accomplished, and nothing of this sort was demonstrated.
Second, going back to the assumed perfection point... in a game such as this one, specifically this one, you cannot let a single imperfection go. Plain and simple. But that's not to say that you should go back and correct the mistakes, because it still won't be published. Nothing new is brought to the table, sorry.
I suggest you try a different game, preferably one that hasn't been published before.
Just because Rick said he wouldn't allow any known mistakes in this run doesn't mean he would extend the same for other runs. Why do you have to be an idiot on purpose, Xkeeper?
I get the point Xkeeper is trying to make, though. In another case, I'd probably agree with it, even. Unfortunately, it falls flat in this particular application.
I see it too, don't get me wrong. Just on a game like this, well, it's been worked on to death, and some mistakes really should've been worked on.
Sometimes I just don't get verbose sometimes too, which does lead to trouble. Wasn't my intention to go starting any arguments or anything.
I get the point Xkeeper is trying to make, though. In another case, I'd probably agree with it, even. Unfortunately, it falls flat in this particular application.
Oh, I never said it should be applied here. Far from it.
I was making this point in terms of a more global scope.
Just because Rick said he wouldn't allow any known mistakes in this run doesn't mean he would extend the same for other runs. Why do you have to be an idiot on purpose, Xkeeper?
Proper sentence would've been "By this point, there should be no known mistakes in a run of this game. It's been documented and speedrunned to death, so there are plenty of materials to check against."
The way he wrote it didn't define a scope of how far it should apply, and I was fighting it in the way I described above. That kind of policy should never pass for every movie.
I'm sorry but if we're going to do a run of every single rom out there we would have thousands of runs on this site.
Voting no, as it is slower than the current run.
Not that I can see. We have a highly optimized run of SMB on the site already. Another country doesn't even give it another run, much less one without any major differences that isn't as optimized.
Oh man! You guys have to try watching this movie with the US ROM! After Mario's first death, he starts walking backwards without moving. He's moonwalking on the spot!
Ahem. Voting No to this one. It's not just slower than the existing run, it's MUCH slower. And even if it wasn't, I still don't see the point.
TASing or playing back a DOS game? Make sure your files match the archive at RGB Classic Games.
The way he wrote it didn't define a scope of how far it should apply, and I was fighting it in the way I described above. That kind of policy should never pass for every movie.
So you just assume everything everyone says applies to everything unless they specifically say it doesn't? Maybe you should just use common sense to define the scope yourself like the rest of us, it's not like this case was especially ambiguous. When you comment on a workbench thread, you're commenting on the movie, not general policies. Sorry to vent but this just pissed me off.
Voting no, because I don't know why we need a European version of this game, especially if the current J/U version is faster. Do the game physics vary? You say you want this game to be published because you want it to be the first European TAS on the site? Why not choose a game that hasn't been on the site yet? Maybe I just don't understand what you are saying.
The way he wrote it didn't define a scope of how far it should apply, and I was fighting it in the way I described above. That kind of policy should never pass for every movie.
So you just assume everything everyone says applies to everything unless they specifically say it doesn't? Maybe you should just use common sense to define the scope yourself like the rest of us, it's not like this case was especially ambiguous. When you comment on a workbench thread, you're commenting on the movie, not general policies. Sorry to vent but this just pissed me off.
Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah shut up.
You seem to be missing the little detail that, on a site that aims for "perfection", it is entirely possible that that kind of attitude would be applied everywhere.
To me, it is a better idea to attempt to point out the flaws of that position first and debate if it was needed later, rather than leave it unchecked and potentially see more interesting runs get rejected.
Of course, I also have no real problem arguing with users, either, so I have little problem playing debate pinball with people like... you.
To me, it is a better idea to attempt to point out the flaws of that position first and debate if it was needed later, rather than leave it unchecked and potentially see more interesting runs get rejected.
You can still do it without being rude, annoying and needlessly sarcastic.
