This topic is for the purpose of discussing #5590: Timestoppa & j1h7e7's SNES Super Mario World "96 Exit Fewest A or B Presses" in 5:11:40.64

But can you do it in 24.5 buttons presses?

But can you do it in 24.5 buttons presses?

Nice meme but you can't actually have half-button presses in full-game runs

Noooooooope. Similar Submissions (and their fates): #3556: Brandon's NES Super Mario Bros. "minimum button presses" in 05:48.04 #3586: Brandon's NES Super Mario Bros. 3 "minimum buttons pressed (235)" in 12:42.13 I've already bailed out from watching this.

I'm quite curious why you didn't just use the Banzai Bill in YI1 instead of waiting 200 time units for the glitch? You can easily hit it by scrolling the screen to the left for example. Even though fastest possible time was not a top priority, I feel like it's a huge unneccesary waste of time... I have yet not watched further than this.

Voting No. According to Spikestuff's links this run was doomed from the start, but I still feel like this run couldn't have stood up on its own merit. There is only a fraction of the entertainment found in other SMB3 runs, and you managed to stretch it out over five hours (none of which is optimized for speed, which is also part of the entertaiment). It seems like it would be a fun puzzle for the true SMB3 TASing fans. Better luck next time!

I don't think this is the same situation as with Spikestuff's links. Minimum presses of any button looks really arbitrary to a viewer, and can't really be evaluated with an input display. However, minimum presses of a button that does something specific and obvious within the game (such as jumping) can be much more interesting, as it becomes more of a low%-like category. What do the A and B buttons do in this game? That's highly relevant here. For example, if they're jump buttons, the category should be "minimum jumps", defined objectively in the submission text via the use of banned control inputs. Additionally, I think a run like this should aim for speed as a secondary goal. A LOTAD can be entertaining, but seeing the same goal optimized is typically much more entertaining, as you get all the usual TASing fun in addition to seeing how the puzzles were solved. Additionally, low%ish / "puzzle" runs of a game greatly benefit from detailed commentary explaining what's going on, the intended ways of doing areas, how banned button presses were bypassed, and the like; I've never seen a LOTAD of nontrivial length that doesn't have one of these, and an optimized run would benefit from it too.

I think that if this goal choice had been applied to the shortest possible route I'd be more inclined to sit through the whole thing. As it is, the prospect of watching the game wait around for coincidences that keep you from having to jump under your own power for all 96 exits isn't appealing, despite how much effort has gone into this. Especially since I just watched the current 96 Exit run a couple days ago.

This has not been entertaining for me in the slightest. There are so many things wrong with this submission but let's list a few. 1) The goal choice is way too arbitrary. 96-exits on its own is fine as it's considered "100%" completion for the game. Fewest presses doesn't complement the category very well and ultimately causes it to drag on for way too long. While the two listed submissions were rejected due to goal choice, they both showed well enough optimization. This submission, however, lacks it due to the heavy restrictions placed upon itself. 2) The optimization is very lacking. Super Mario World is one of the site's most heavily optimized games and thus the standards of quality are very high. This submission does not meet such standards and as I have mentioned in the point with the goal choice, the goal severely leads to very sub optimized results. Overall, this submission hasn't entertained me at all and the suboptimal play didn't help matters either. Voting no.

This is an interesting submission. I'm always into oddball goal choices, and this is certainly up there. However, unfortunately, as others pointed out, the entertainment is severely lacking. While it's cool to see some of the strategies used to avoid jumping, after a fairly short while, things begin to repeat already, and we get a fairly good grasp of the tools you have in your toolbox. The tricks in the run are fairly basic as well. There's nothing as crazy as the fabled "building up speed for 12 hours" to go to parallel universes as there is in SM64. The run doesn't really seem to employ much mastery over the game despite its crazy goal choice. Outrageous comes to mind, you just seem to struggle to get along, and it doesn't really look optimal at all. The various null sprite glitches are cool, but probably suited better to a playaround run. Ultimately, I unfortunately don't think this should be published. I enjoyed the novelty at first, but it wore off fairly quickly. In the end, the run sadly is not nearly entertaining enough for the amount of time that it demands from the viewer. Perhaps it should go to Gruefood Delight instead, I'm not sure. Also, for an encode, it would enhance the viewing experience if you made a Lua script that counts all the A presses and shows it on the screen, along with if the A button is currently held or not.

Try to do, SMW love animal: yoshi's don't die %... It's more entertaining, I think! Sorry for authors, but for this run, it's like your A/B inputs... Not possible!

Honestly, I wasn't expecting it to be well-received by the people here, people who are mainly here for optimised gameplay.

I think it's a pretty decent demo for what it is. It's just really not suitable for publication here, especially since it's not actually a speedrun.

I was very closely involved in the making of this run, and I surely invested many hours in it, suggesting ideas, strats and saving B presses, though I have no input in it. TimeStoppa was always interested in keeping the TAS going, he did a great job leading the project. However, I'm going to be 100% honest here. This run could have been significantly more interesting if it wasn't by some decisions that, in my opinion, were really poor. Some stages could be cleared without the usage of the orb, or of the infinite time glitch, but they were kinda tricky to perform, and the author decided to just go for the orb/time up, which are slow but easy. This reduces a lot the entertainment value of the run. A run like this that doesn't aim for speed must be REALLY entertaining, and thus a trade-of of entertainment for facility is a bad decision. The biggest example of that in my opinion is VofB1. He just orbed there, losing more and more minutes of overworld walk. But see what it could have been: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeEdU7H85Bg I would have voted yes if speed had been a secondary goal of this run, which would make from this TAS a very entertaining superplay. However, speed and entertainment were ignored too much. Please don't take this personally Timestoppa, you did a great job, but this TAS is not suitable for publication in this site. Voting no.

It's such a shame to see so much work put into one TAS, only to have it panned by everybody on this site. I love the idea of restricting yourself to make more interesting TAS inputs, but I have to say that this specific goal choice just didn't do much for me. First off, why is speed not a priority? This seems like the perfect TAS to beat the fastest time possible. Secondly, you don't seem to mess around a lot when there is time to spare, which made me a little bored at times. Finally, (and this may not be your fault, I don't know) it was simply too long to have me fully invested. You even fast-forwarded through a lot of it in your own video. Voting no, but I will say that there is potential for a great TAS in there somewhere.

Similar to the other posters, I love this goal and have consumed a lot of videos of individual level TASes of the goal before, but think: 1) That speed should be a secondary goal 2) There should be a 'supercut' encode that fast forwards/fades through all times where a timer is being waited out, or something similarly repetitive.

"Does not aim for fastest time, even as a secondary goal" pretty much instantly dooms this for the site. This can be considered a form of low% speedrun; the first goal is low% above all else, but the second goal has to be speed. If it'd take, let's say, 12 hours of building up speed somewhere to save an A press, then go for it, but if you know you could save it in 6 hours instead, it has to be done.

More than half of the run is made of waiting times; this explains why the encode is 2 hours long while the movie file is 5. I didn't watch the encode until the end because it's just too much boooooring. So I'm not even going to vote but I'm pretty sure it would have been an absolute No.

om, nom, nom... crunchy!