This is just to reach the highest score as fast as possible,
there is a story mode, but it is kind of boring.
Bisqwit: Oh no, this game has longer credits than your actual
play was...
Uhum. This movie looks really great.
If only it were not tool-assisted :)
Surprisingly small rerecord count: 78.
Lezard: Yeah, but i have played this game so much that
i do all those plays in easy mode without slow motion or
savestates, but frankly, it is impossible to move like that.
78 rerecords!? In the guidelines it makes it quite clear that you need to put alot of effot into your TASes and if they used less than 1500 rerecords it shows that the player didn't try hard enough to publish their movie. I'm not sure the movie is actully that good. But I do have to admit that I am inpressed that the movie was managed to be done in 78 rerecords but shocked at the effort so I'd rate this movie as a MEH.
This movie is almost as old as the site; which accounts for the less stringent requirements. Why'd you necro-bump it?
Sage advice from a friend of Jim: So put your tinfoil hat back in the closet, open your eyes to the truth, and realize that the government is in fact causing austismal cancer with it's 9/11 fluoride vaccinations of your water supply.
78 rerecords!? In the guidelines it makes it quite clear that you need to put alot of effot into your TASes and if they used less than 1500 rerecords it shows that the player didn't try hard enough to publish their movie. I'm not sure the movie is actully that good.
You are aware that this movie was submitted over 6 years ago?
TASing wasn't exactly the same as it is now. TASing was something new, and if gameplay was clearly better than unassisted play, it had good chances of getting published. There is little point in commenting on these runs using todays standards.
The currently published TAS of this game is almost 2 minutes faster than this TAS... so yeah, 78 rerecords was not enough to create the best possible TAS, but maybe that wasn't even the goal of this movie...
This movie is almost as old as the site; which accounts for the less stringent requirements. Why'd you necro-bump it?[/quote]
Maybe even a MEH to a YES as you said it is quite good for it's date :).
(Rated as a YES)
This movie is almost as old as the site; which accounts for the less stringent requirements. Why'd you necro-bump it?
Maybe even a MEH to a YES as you said it is quite good for it's date :).
(Rated as a YES
Why are you rating it? The vote... and even the rating of this movie don't matter, as far as I know.
I'd suggest, if you are interested in rating a movie, watch and rate this. Remember, vote doesn't matter. http://tasvideos.org/971M.html
Sage advice from a friend of Jim: So put your tinfoil hat back in the closet, open your eyes to the truth, and realize that the government is in fact causing austismal cancer with it's 9/11 fluoride vaccinations of your water supply.
This movie is almost as old as the site; which accounts for the less stringent requirements. Why'd you necro-bump it?
Maybe even a MEH to a YES as you said it is quite good for it's date :).
(Rated as a YES
Why are you rating it? The vote... and even the rating of this movie don't matter, as far as I know.
I'd suggest, if you are interested in rating a movie, watch and rate this. Remember, vote doesn't matter. http://tasvideos.org/971M.html
Now, That's the power of movie that uses over 3k rerecords!
