feos: The research before making this run seems to be done very poorly. Since 2007 there exists a WIP that is 532 frame faster in Level 1 + Boss. And that WIP was not even optimized to maximum. Since 2009 there exists a real-time run that uses quite some tricks that prove this TAS's sub-optimality. The main thing is skipping the Level 4 Boss (saves ~13 seconds) by scrolling the camera up, which does not let him spawn. Also, standing right before the mini-boss of that level, one can kill him a second faster than in this TAS. This does not come from the difficulty difference, since that only adds 1-2 HP to bosses. The game speed isn't different in a European version, used by that RTS. I also can't agree with the difficulty chosen here, because it does not affect the gameplay, it only increases the player's damage. That means you can do much more damage boosts in an Easy run, not losing actual gameplay. Rejecting the run, and hoping more effort is put in a TAS of such a complicated game, ideally several people would work on it, due to heavy luck manipulation required.

The question was raised about why a lower difficulty was chosen, at least one seems to be the complete opposite of a valid reason for choosing a lower difficulty in a ton of other games.

1) A harder difficulty is slower 2) A harder difficulty is less entertaining 3) A harder difficulty is harder to TAS How much clearer do you want me to be? Would you like me to write a thesis on the pros and cons of each difficulty while I'm at it?

I'd like you to explain why those are appropriate reasons to choose a lower difficulty for this game, but not appropriate reasons to choose a lower difficulty for other games.

I'd like you to explain why those are appropriate reasons to choose a lower difficulty for this game, but not appropriate reasons to choose a lower difficulty for other games.

I don't give a crap about other games, that's for a different topic. All I told you was why I chose the difficulty for this game in particular.

The spirit behind the difficulty guideline is pretty simple: choose difficulty according to what makes the most interesting run. That's all there is to it. By default, that would be the hardest difficulty because those are obviously more impressive to complete, but it definitely does not always apply. If raising the difficulty just means that boss battles take more repetitive action and damage-taking speed tricks have to be forgone, then it is definitely justifiable to pick a lower difficulty. I don't know why people are making such a big issue out of this. We get a more interesting run this way, so why force the change?

The spirit behind the difficulty guideline is pretty simple: choose difficulty according to what makes the most interesting run. That's all there is to it. By default, that would be the hardest difficulty because those are obviously more impressive to complete, but it definitely does not always apply. If raising the difficulty just means that boss battles take more repetitive action and damage-taking speed tricks have to be forgone, then it is definitely justifiable to pick a lower difficulty. I don't know why people are making such a big issue out of this. We get a more interesting run this way, so why force the change?

If raising the difficulty just means that boss battles take more repetitive action and damage-taking speed tricks have to be forgone, then it is definitely justifiable to pick a lower difficulty.

What speed tricks would have to be foregone here on a higher difficulty? Only rarely does health dip under half. That doesn't seem to be a limiting factor.

but I strongly disagree with the reasons given for why a lesser difficulty was chosen and believe that a slower run on a harder difficulty should obsolete this, regardless of speed.

Great run btw.

I don't know why people are making such a big issue out of this. We get a more interesting run this way, so why force the change?

Can someone actually show game play as "evidence" that hard mode severly kills entertainment?

Ok, I guess I poorly explained that. Jedi Mode in the Super Star Wars games are not suitable for TASing because: *They give bosses more HP *You take more damage *more enemies spawn So point #1 means all the bosses are slower, #2 means less cool speed tricks, and #3 means more lag optimization, just for a movie that is virtually identical to the Easy Mode, only slower. So in the interest of entertainment and speed, for this run in particular, I decided that Easy mode is the best option. Obviously the use of hardest difficulty should be different based on the run.

Can someone actually show game play as "evidence" that hard mode severly kills entertainment? Currently, even if this was true, people only saw the normal mode TAS and never the hard mode. If this game had an easy mode and you used it, assuming this TAS didn't exist, I'm sure people would argue "easy is more entertaining" simply due to the lack of comparison.

This video is for The Empire Strikes Back, but all three games in the series share the same changes in difficulty.

And to clarify, I fully expect and have no issue with this being accepted, but I strongly disagree with the reasons given for why a lesser difficulty was chosen (fewer enemies, easier to TAS, faster) and believe that a slower run on a harder difficulty should obsolete this, regardless of speed. I'd also hate to see games on harder difficulties obsoleted because of the reasons given here.

I don't care how much evidence you present to me, I'm still not going to do a Jedi mode TAS.

I don't care how much evidence you present to me, I'm still not going to do a Jedi mode TAS.

Okay? Claims were made that appeared to be in error. I showed why I believed them to be in error. Better understanding overall can be nothing but a good thing.

Would you want to TAS this game on the Hardest difficulty?

We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard