nop, this is some show off fest completion

Playaround?

The actual players of Golf shall learn something from this, then it might actually be an entertaining sport. Yes vote.

Does this guy even own a putter?

Correct judging for a golf TAS should be either score or entertainment, not time. This movie has a great score and does some nice trick shots. But what about hole number 10? Couldn't you do something more entertaining there? And there is nothing wrong with entering your name at the end, I actually prefer it when people take the time to do so.

Xiaopang3333 uses a different character Fernando Almeida in his run who has more power and his power bars fill quicker. Now he has done Germany and USA and by the looks of things just by using this character it cuts a heap of time waiting for the power bars to fill. The video below gets a time of 11:27 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53Umvvz3gi8 Not knowing the intricies of the game but I would say you've chosen a suboptimal character.

Nice and entertaining, yes vote for me =)

Even if speed is not the main goal of a run like this, it should nevertheless always be a secondary goal. In other words, even an entertainment-based run should never waste time for no reason, and should get to its goal (whatever it might be) as soon as possible, with no frames wasted. Even an entertainment-oriented run can have what we would call "sloppy play" (which is most often precisely wasted frames that serve no purpose.) If the same level of entertainment and/or the same objective (eg. maximum score) can be achieved with another playable character that's faster, then I would say that the faster character should be used (unless there's a very good reason to not to.)

Maybe speed isn't the real factor to merit playarounds (like, if something may be done faster it must be done faster), but it looks like the characters weren't thoroughly compared, so even as a playaround it may be suboptimal to use one that isn't the best in some sense. So it should be examined which character gives what benefits, and if "Fernando Almeida" goes better, the author should switch to him. But it may appear as not worthy as well, all would depend on how they look like, compared to each other.

well, until we get a better run or faster run, yes vote. the run is fun and the shot animation is ridiculously well done compared to the rest... yes

Great fun to watch. I loved the bouncing off rocks, the variety (going in a bunker, once on the green), and of course the cheesy Engrish. Yes vote! (For moons, of course)

 2. What would be the proper category name?

Blank... Playround? *shrugs*

I'd say "maximum score", if that's indeed the goal of the run.

 2. What would be the proper category name?

freudian & goatee showoff http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=44HZNXfMFR0#t=103 i'd go with playaround to reflect the moon choice and maximum score as a sub category

Uhm, it's a minimum score run. Golf is about having a low score.

hi there, sorry for delay some explanation : -my very first goal was to win the race with maximum handicap, i mean no normal green shot allowed, always try to find alternative ways to make it way harder and entertaining (many shots as possible on rock/road, and when no possible bunker/rough) -second goal always min -2 under the par -third was win the 2 contest i really can understand that the run could be done(?maybe? don't sure if it will be equal to this one in terms of fancy) with Almeida but make a tas is a pleasure so i wasn't feel like "hey i will pick him ,save load*N and maybe not acccomplish my personnal goal and feeling no pleasure doing it for a bunch of frame", particulary with this category of game for the branch i can't help much due to my bad english i'm happy that you guys not lost your 15min :) (zarma vu que la vitesse etait pas un critere je ne peux que te repondre par un simple non ^^')

Au pire t'écris tes suggestions de branches en français et quelqu'un traduiera pour toi. Les gens proposent playaround pour les films qui montrent les possibilités du jeu qui ne seraient pas visibles dans un but classique. Je pense que ça correspond un peu non ? ___________________ At worst you could write your suggestions in French and somebody will translate theù for you. People talk about playaround for movies that show what could be done with the game that wouldn't make it in a regular movie. Maybe that fits your goal?

Uhm, it's a minimum score run. Golf is about having a low score.

I think it's a question of perspective. To "maximize the score" you try to go as much "under par" as possible. The more under par you go, the better. "20 under par" is better than "10 under par". In that sense, you are maximizing your score. Nitpicking aside, I'd say it would be a good idea to keep branch names as consistent as possible and sensible even between games.

J'ai adoré! :)

i think playround is a good choice too

i think playround is a good choice too

If we end up with that, I even doubt now that the faster run could obsolete it. It would just be a speedrun branch. At least if one wants to make such a run, he should go for speed. Would a golf tas aiming for speed make sense?

I would probably never sit thru a golf tas, of this type of golf game, longer than 5 minutes, if speed was the #1 goal. just so boring. i think for this game type speed never makes sense. maybe there are other golf games that have modes or subgames that look very impressive when speed is #1 maximization. this one is not. re: branch names. why can't our branch names be perfectly uniform and consistent, while remaining totally unused in games like this? This game doesn't need a branch, because we will only ever have one run of this game. Only a subjectively improved, or otherwise more interesting run, will ever obsolete this one. The only big decision here should be whether to use tags like suboptimal character or playaround just my 2c

I don't understand why speed couldn't be a perfectly reasonable goal. Not aiming at the perfect score would strongly feel like sloppy play. If a hole can be done in 2 shots, and the player does 4 just to do something "funny", it will feel unoptimized, sloppy and a waste of time. It should be done in 2, if that's the minimum amount that's physically possible. How to do those 2 shots is another question. It could go way off course than then from there make a miracle shot to the hole. In the vast majority of cases, however, that will probably not be the possible, and a completely optimal (also timewise) play will probably be as good as anything else. So I'd say: Primary goal, perfect score. Secondary goal, don't waste any time unnecessarily. Branch name "max score" unless the run really aims at the shortest possible time (in which case the branch would be unnamed.)

This game doesn't need a branch, because we will only ever have one run of this game.

Because the new policy that's under consideration/adoption says that an unnamed branch means "any% fastest possible completion". Any other goal should have a branch name, even if there's only one run of a game. Making a publication with no branch name that nevertheless is not the fastest possible completion would break that naming convention and would be confusing.

I found this entertaining and enjoyed the variety of shots, the long shots over bodies of water onto one small rock, and the distance of some of the backspins. Yes vote.

So I'd say: Primary goal, perfect score. Secondary goal, don't waste any time unnecessarily. Branch name "max score" unless the run really aims at the shortest possible time (in which case the branch would be unnamed.)

You're talking about this run, right? If so, why not call it playaround? (Just to put the reason clear.)