Ok so what I saw there was basically the same run as before, with different camera angles. I feel bad for all of you three. I know you've put much effort in this movie. But I didn't see a noticeable improvement. Both in term of speed and entertainment (I can't consider those new camera angles as entertainment). If this lacked effort, I'd vote No. But you made effort, so I'm going to vote Meh.

Congratulations, you saved 3 frames and made the camera-work worse. I'm sorry, but in Super Mario 64 you really need to pay extra careful attention to what angle you are facing so that the audience can not only see Mario clearly, but where he is going (Hint: facing the camera so Mario is coming towards us is NOT a good angle. Watching from behind at a diagonal is better); otherwise it is just way too disconcerting.

Um, it's a good improvement to a run that we already thought was totally optimal. You'd need to be pretty bitter to vote anything other than yes. Hope it gets published, it deserves it. Good job, guys.

Improvement to an already insanely optimal run. Yes. I believe that leaves 135 frames to be saved to make it sub 5:00. Wonder whether that will ever happen.

I like improvements....but the camera angles are distracting and I don't like them.

I wouldn't really say the camera angles are significantly better or worse (though I'd say worse if I had to pick), but I do think the camera angle on the BLJ to BitS was one of the best parts of the last run. That's the only spot that makes me say the entertainment value is definitely less in this movie. It should still be published as an improvement I suppose; we'll see some brand new camera angles for the next improvement within 6 months, so it's not a big deal.

While the camerea angles aren't the best in the world, I do like the way you made it somewhat different from the previous run, so I voted yes.

You guys care way too much about 'entertainment'. The run is an improvement to an already existing run. Regardless of how the camera changes, it is still better. That should be enough reason to accept it. Entertainment should only be a factor (in publishing) when the point of a movie is not speed running OR if someone adds entertainment to a boring run but is still able to tie/beat the time. I apologize ahead of time for having an opinion since I know basically no one at this site agrees with me.

You guys care way too much about 'entertainment'. The run is an improvement to an already existing run. Regardless of how the camera changes, it is still better. That should be enough reason to accept it. Entertainment should only be a factor (in publishing) when the point of a movie is not speed running OR if someone adds entertainment to a boring run but is still able to tie/beat the time. I apologize ahead of time for having an opinion since I know basically no one at this site agrees with me.

^ this. It's not too big of a hassle to change the entry every three or four months per entry, right? Why not do this?

You guys care way too much about 'entertainment'.

Mission statement TASvideos.org is committed to providing the best in tool-assisted speedruns and superhuman play. Our runs are held to high standards, and only high quality runs will be published on the site. We also prefer quality over quantity — a poor quality run will not be accepted whether it is a game new to the site or an improvement to a pre-existing run. Our runs may not be perfect (if that is even possible), but are still high quality and aim to be as entertaining as possible. I'll just go grab some popcorn...

You guys care way too much about 'entertainment'.

Mission statement TASvideos.org is committed to providing the best in tool-assisted speedruns and superhuman play. Our runs are held to high standards, and only high quality runs will be published on the site. We also prefer quality over quantity — a poor quality run will not be accepted whether it is a game new to the site or an improvement to a pre-existing run. Our runs may not be perfect (if that is even possible), but are still high quality and aim to be as entertaining as possible. I'll just go grab some popcorn...

"...providing the best in tool-assisted speedruns and superhuman play." Okay, so you provide the "best." Obviously a run that beats an older run by 3 frames is better than its predecessor. You say they may not be perfect, because obviously no one knows what perfection is, but it also implies that you strive for perfection. If you reject the better run because its camera angles are different, then you might as well accept the 16 star run submitted by Nahoc since everyone thought it was 'more entertaining' than the 0 Star anyway (thus, not striving for perfection, but something different instead). And to clarify, when I said you guys care too much about entertainment, I meant care for it over speed...especially because with speed comes entertainment in itself. I care about entertainment too, but to sacrifice speed for it in a tool-assisted speedrun is just stupid. Also, thank you for not mentioning the rest of my post which supports my claim.

Voting No because of the camera work. I like that the run IS faster... but it just is hard to watch even knowing the levels as well as I do. Unique, I'll give ya that... but No.

This camera work is terrible, I cannot condone obsoleting the current, entertaining, publication with this unwatchable nonsense.

The new camera angles are a bit confusing, and the rapid zooming after Bowser fights is really annoying. Since an improvement of three frames is hardly noticeable for someone like me who doesn't watch movies at a frame level, I'm going to say that I prefer the old run over this one. I'm not going to vote on this since I don't have enough posts yet.

This run sure is different than the previous one, but different doesn't mean better. And I'll echo a lot of other people in saying that the camera work is ugly and distraction. About the only part I liked was the beginning of the BitFS fight. Overall it was still entertaining, but not nearly as much as compared to the current run, so I'm voting 'meh'

Ah, I remember the good old days when SPEEDruns, like this superplay, were lauded for how quickly games were beaten. Now we have crying over camera views of a 5 minute game we've all seen so many times already. ...Really? Thankfully, a few of us agree that improvements like this are needed and welcome; it just sucks that our opinions are completely worthless because a "mission statement" says so.

Since a lot (10 people is alot) of people hated the run camera angles, does that mean that if this gets published, and someone submits another run later of the exact same time just without the camera angles, would that run be accepted?

3 frames - My two cents. Saving 3 frames is good for TASing, and I'm happy that the authors are submitting their 3 frame improvement. How does one save a frame in a 3 dimensional game? X and Y positions in an N64 game are floating point variables. Any movement you make in the level will have lasting effects on your decimal position depending on the precise angle you move. This decimal position could vary by say 0.001 of a pixel. By optimizing angles and combinations of moves such that position values are perfect enough to clear the destination threshold one movement increment earlier, the frame is saved. If I spend 24 hours just trying random angle improvements for a BLJ and happen to save a frame in the 0 star run, does this automatically make me better than the whole zero star team? No, I personally would still suck at TASing this game. The Japanese players are all phenomenal TASers, probably roughly equal (+/-) to the zero star team in skill, but it is completely arbitrary to say that the last person to find a small improvement is better than the previous person to find an improvement. The run was never "maxed", and it was overly boastful if anyone said this at any point in time. The 0 star team worked very hard to maximize the run to the best of their capability within reasonable time constraints. The run cannot be maxed if they do not spend near infinite time, so there was never a doubt that the run was at least a little bit suboptimal somewhere. The Japanese players have been quite respectful about this. The (old) 0 star team has been a little irritable at times, but for a decent reason. Wouldn't you be a little irritated too if you spent an obscene amount of time improving a run, to be improved upon and told that someone is better than you? The corollary would be saying that you are worse than someone. As soon as recognition is taken away, people will stop encouraging others to improve upon their work, and you the viewer don't get to see amazing runs. This way of thinking is really just insulting to the author. Can't we just appreciate a good run for what it is? It is a contribution of various individuals over time to an entertaining product. That's what I'd like to continue seeing on the workbench.

Sorry, had to vote no. I don't believe 3 frames are worth a new movie. Oh and I hated most of the camera angles, especially zooms in/out. But having a hangover, that's maybe why.

This seems to be competing for the "Worst looking TAS of 2011" Award. Even though I know the game reasonably well I can barely tell what's going on. You hardly see where Mario is going, and the camera seems to be busy showing objects from below during BLJs so you can't even see Mario at all. The constant clicking of camera changes, especially during the Bowser fights, is also just annoying. It doesn't help that the 3 frames saved are in spots that are visually inapreciable, the viewer just doesn't notice them at all. Can't help but vote no on this. The 3 frames saved in no way make up for the fact that this is almost painful to watch in comparison to the old run.

Since when did 'not enough frames were saved' become a reason to reject?

Since when did 'not enough frames were saved' become a reason to reject?

^ an improvement is an improvement, the site should always publish the fastest movie if everyone really hates the camera angles, I don't think it'd be hard to hex them differently, so just request that

I didn't notice the three frame improvement. It would have been impossible for me to notice that. I did notice the changes in camera work, and didn't like it at all. It would have been impossible for me not to notice it. To sum up, three frames of improvement are absolutely not worth the much worse overall presentation. I never felt this site was only about making an arbitrary number on an arbitrary page go lower. Voting no.

I just watched the encode, don't really see what the fuss is about regarding the camera. Voting yes.